Patriots. 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. 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 legislators. Between 1774 and 1776 the British Parliament passed a series of laws. In 1774 it was the sugar act. Then a year later the stamp act. In 1767 the townsend act. Then the tea act. Then in 1775 the prohibiting act. Standing behind all these acts was one overarching piece of legislation which i think was the driving force behind all of these particular acts. That was the declaratory act of 1766, which claimed that parliaments authority extended to the american colonies in all cases whatsoever. That meant that parliament was not only supreme over the colonies, but its power and authority was absolutely supreme. All right. So it could pass it could pass taxes, which it had never done before. It could pass taxes in the american colonies for revenue and the most famous of course of all these pieces of british legislation was the stamp act of 1765 which put a tax on stamped paper which the colonies needed for all legal and commercial transactions. What was the specific constitutional issue . It was where to draw the ju jurisdictional boundaries. Now 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 un constitutional. Over the course of the never 10 or 11 years british officials and american patriots began a search for principles. The principles first of the british constitution. They had competing understandings of the british constitution. For the americans the debate was not simply over the british constitution. The americans began starting in 1765 a search, a search for deeper moral principles. When they argued that the stamp act was unjust, the real question is how or in what way was the stamp act unjust . Over the course of the next 10 or 11 years the americans began this search for new standards, new principles of justice, of liberty, of equality, of rights, of sovereignty. Over the course of these 10 or 11 years they began to see that the principles that once tied the mother country to the colonies no longer worked. 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. Thats what they searched for over the years of the imperial crisis. Now, in many ways, as john adams argued in a letter 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. This was effective 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. Then in 1782 thomas payne in a letter he wrote to france, he said 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. Now, again, 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 they thought about the most important, the most fundamental concepts of justice. That takes us now to the topic of todays lecture which is the philosophy of the declaration of independence. 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. All of this comes to a head in 1776. As we talked about last class, the last link between the colonies and the mother country was through their relationship, the colonies relationship with the person of the king. In january 1776 with the publication of tom paines common sense, that relationship is forever severed. There is now sintellectchually relationship between the colonies and the king. That takes us straight to july 4, 1776 and to the passage that we talked about last class of the declaration of the independence. What was this declaration of independence . It was ratified on july 4, 1776. The first thing to note about it is that it is indeed a political and in some ways a diplomatic document. It was written in part for george iii. It was written for european diplomats and financers. It was written for the American People to help organize the American People politically. 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. 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. 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 the principles that the americans had been searching for during the years of the imperial crisis. Its a summing up. When it says, we hold these truths to be selfevident, right, 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. In fact, what the declaration of course does is establish the moral foundations, not just of these new states, but of the United States of america. Right . That is the great meaning of the declaration. Its that it provides the moral foundation for this new nation going forward. All right. Before we jump into the declaration what were going to do in todays class were 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 before in this class, which is the if i low so fik background of the declaration of independence. In my view the declaration is the embodiment its a precipe of the principles of enlightenment. All ideas are embodies in the declaration of independence. The three great philosophers of the enlightenment were sir isaac newton in his great work, john locks essay and locks second treatise of government. Ill argue that the ideas, the fundamental core ideas from newton and lock 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. Its an abstract of the core basic principles youll find in locks second treatise of government. All right. Now, 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 on to the declaration of independence. So, there is i think an enlightenment project. We can identify a kind of comprehensive philosophy of this period known as the enlightenment, the 17th and 18th century enlightenment. Like all comprehensive systematic philosophies it has four basic branches. It includes four basic branches of philosophy. First is me thtaphysics. I can sum up for you in one word the enlightenments view of metaphysics. Nature. The Second Branch is epistemology, thats concerned with the nature of knowledge. I can sum up the enlightenments view in one word. Reason. The enlightenment also has an ethical theory. Ethics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of human action and human relationships. I think i can sum up in one word the enlightenments view of ethics. That is rights. Finally, the enlightenment has a view of politics. 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. 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 how can we see those ideas within the declaration of independence . All right. 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 it the first paragraph and second paragraph. If you think about it, its just two sentences, two very long sentences. Were going to pars these sentences and were going to try to pull out of them sort of the deepest if i low so fik meaning. Lets take the first sentence 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 entitled them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires 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 epistomology. What do i mean by that . Well, lets first identify the core ideas of that first sentence. That first sentence has a kind of overarching theme structure to it. It has a purpose. Whats the purpose of the first sentence . Its 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. That first paragraph also has a principle or a standard. In this case a moral standard. That moral standard would be the laws of nature and of natures god. That first paragraph or sentence also implies an action. The action is the necessity to dissolve the connection between these two countries. Now, let me just say that in my view in many ways ill talk about this at the end of class the most interesting word for me of this first paragraph is the word necessary. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, et cetera, the question is necessary . Why necessary . How is it necessary that the American People dissolve their connection to the mother country . To say that its necessary suggests that it must be. But in Human Affairs theres nothing that must be, right . The fact of the matter is in 1776 at least a third of all american colonies at that time were loyalists. A third hadnt made up their mind about whether they supported independence or not. So how is it on july 4, 1776 the americans argue that it is now necessary . The question is why necessary . Why not say when in the course of human events its optional to dissolve our political bands . Why necessary . Ill come back to that question at the end of the talk. I think the word necessary tells us actually something deeply important about the moral logic and the moral characters of those who signed the declaration of independence. All right. Now, let me break down what i think are the philosophic ideas contained in that first paragraph. The declaration, as i suggested, it has a metaphysics it draws on summed up in one word, nature. We see that when it talks about the laws of nature and of natures god. In the 17th and 18th centuries natural what were called at the time natural philosophers, what we would call natural scientists today, they began to discover certain laws of nature. Scientific or physical laws of nature. These laws of nature in effect organized the universe, kept it in harmony, kept it as a system governed by certain core laws. Like the law of gravitation or newtons three laws of planetary motion. These laws of physical nature were absolute. They were and they are absolute. They are universal. They apply throughout the whole universe. They are permanent. As a result of these discove discoveries, moral philosophers in the late 17th and then into the 18th centuries began to look or try to discover certain moral laws of nature. So when the declaration refers to the laws of nature and of natures god, its referring to moral laws of nature, right . If you remember and go back to one of the very first classes when we read john adams diary, the young 21yearold john adams writing in his diary about the things he was learning at harvard college. What he learned is that in the universe, according to newtons laws, that entities, things, physical things out there in nature, have an identity and that identity is absolute. In addition to having an identity it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. Then the same adams argued is true for human action as well. Its a more difficult leap to go from signty fik laws of nature to discovering human laws of nature. That was the quest, that was the search of 18th century moral philosophers including the Founding Fathers. We see in that first paragraph let me just im sorry. Let me back up and also say that the phrase in the declaration is the laws of god and of natures god. Its interesting that it doesnt say the laws of nature and of god. It says natures god. For most American Revolutionaries who were the grandchildren, the ifphilosophi grandchildren of enlightenment, they viewed natures god as not the god in the old testament. Not the god who can change the laws of nature at will. Rather a god who was like a watch maker or clock maker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. Thats what i think is being referred to there with regard to natures god. Then in the first sentence it talks about the causes which impel them to the separation. Right . This is a kind of 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 the little separation of the colonies from the mother country. It has causes, right . In order to understand the action of independence and separation you have to understand the causes, which of course is a principle part of what the declaration does. In the second and very long body of the second paragraph of the declaration it lays out its charges against king george iii. Now the first paragraph also has an epistomolojy. In the context of the Founding Fathers that means its going to in some way praise and promote mans faculty of reason. How does it do that in the first paragraph . Well, at the very end of the 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. Theyre speaking to the reason or 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, an argument, appeal to the reason of people around the world, and that those reasons can be understood. Right . Thats why in the second paragraph just before the charges are laid out against the king, the declaration says, quote, to prove this, this meaning the absolute despotism of george iii, the tyranny of george iii, as stated in the declaration, to prove this tyranny, let facts be submitted to a candid world. The americans are making they have essentially written an indictment against george iii and indirectly to the British Parliament as well. It lays out the declaration lays out all of the crimes committed by george iii and the British Parliament. Right . So 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 submitting it to a candid world. Were appealing to the minds, to the reason of people everywhere. All right. Lets now turn to the second paragraph which is one at least whats often considered to be the second paragraph, is really just one long sentence. It says we hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. 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, its 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 affect their safety and happiness. Well, that is in my view without question the most famous and the single most important sentence ever written in American History and maybe even the single most important sentence written in world history. That one sentence, that one very long sentence, establishes the philosophic moral standard by which the colonies are going to judge the actions of king george iii and parliament. In fact, what theyre really doing at a deeper level is laying out the principles, the moral standards by which all governments everywhere should be judged. All right. Now, this very long, complex sentence contains a whole universe of ideas and moral principles. Let me just say or repeat that this one sentence of the declaration is a summing up. It is a precipe of john locks second treatise of government. All of the ideas contained in this one sentence sum up the core fundamental principles of locks second treatise of government. All right. So lets now begin to unpack the meaning of this complex sentence. It begins we hold these truths to be selfevident. Now, in many ways i think this is the most important clause of the most important sentence of the most important document in American History. Its one thats often passed over. In part its passed over i think because its so simple and so elegant in its formulation that we just are kind our eye kind of reads over it and we want to get to the truths themselves. I think this first clause is critically important. We hold these truths to be selfevident. Now, most scholars of the declaration of independence tend to focus on this notion of selfevident. We hold these truths to be selfevident. What could that possibly mean to say that the truths that are to follow are selfevident . Well, this idea of selfevidency is a technical term. The technical term of selfevidency is that in a proposition the subject and the predicate have to be in agreement with each other, which simply means that a selfevident truth is one or a selfevident proposition is one that is perceptually selfevident to anyone with eyes to see. Up is not down. Black is not white. In is not out. All right . These are perceptually selfevident truths. But surely that cant be what jefferson is referring to relative to the declaration. Because, as well see, the four truths of the declaration are much, much more complex than being p being percent evident to the viewer. What does that mean . Ill explain. I think the most important word in we hold these truths to be selfevident is truths, the word truths, or truth. Why is it important . I think its certainly important for us now in the 21st century to try to understand what americas Founding Fathers meant by the concept truth. I would argue that in many ways its hard for us to understand what they meant by the concept truth because in our world today, in our post modern 21st century academic world we have discarded the concept of truth. The oxford dictionary recently said that the word posttruth, as we live in a posttruth society was i believe its 2016 word of the year. So for us we live in a posttruth world apparently. That was not true for americas Founding Fathers. They believed that the concept of truth meant that there are, in fact, capital t, truths. Truth is first and most importantly in terms of a definition, connect to reality. A truth is a concept that has to connect in some fundamental objective way to reality. These truths, the characteristics of the concept truth would be that that are absolute, certain, universal and timeless. All right. So in other words, to sum up americas Founding Fathers did believe that there are moral truths that are not subjective. They dont change with the times or place, but they are objectively, absolutely true in all places, in all times. All right. Now, how do we get selfevident truths . How did the American People get selfevident truths . If its the case and i think it is partly that the four truths are not selfevident, what did jefferson what could he have possibly meant when he said we hold these truths to be sel selfevident . Who are these we . Jefferson and the committee of five tasked with the declarat n declaration the we means the committee of five. But it also means the 56 members of the Continental Congress. Then on top of the 56 members of the Continental Congress it also means the American People. The declaration of independence is speaking on behalf of we, the people. We, the people of the United States of america. We hold these truths. Theres a problem. What does it mean to say we hold these truths to be selfevident . Some of these truths are pretty complex philosophic concepts as well see in a minute. Did all americans come to see these truths all at the same time . Surely theres a difference in intellectual kp intellectual capacity between Thomas Jefferson and john adams on one hand and an uneducated farmer living in massachusetts. The key word to unlock the meaning of selfevident truth is the word, hold. We hold these truths. To hold is to grasp. But to grasp is something that can take place over time and 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, philosophers have identified these truths and now we, the people as a whole, we hold them as well. So i think this first clause of the declaration means Something Like that. All right. Lets turn now to the truths. The declaration says we hold these truths to be selfevident. Well, what are these truths . Well, it turns out the declaration claims that there are four selfevident truths. Now, i can sum up the four selfevident truths each in a word. First, equality. Second, rights. Third, consent. And, fourth, 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, what were calling the second paragraph, has an ethics and a politics in the same way that the first paragraph had an metaphysics and epistomology. The moral part would be equality and rights. The political principles of the four selfevident truths would be the principle of consent and revolution. All right. Lets drill down now and take a look at each one of the four selfevident truths. What do they actually mean . More particularly how do they actually cash out . All right. These are not simply abstract floating 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 did he kri gagss of george iii and the British Parliament, but theyre also going to serve as the moral Political Foundation of the constitutions and the governments they are about to draft and they are going to provide a kind of ideal for the American People, an ideal that Many Americans still live by. All right. Lets take the first selfevident truth which says all men are created equal. Well, what could this possibly mean . Well, the first thing to note is that it says all men are created equal. It doesnt say some men, it doesnt say white colonial americans. It says all men are created equal. And virtually all of the bills of rights that followed the declaration of independence, the state bill of rights, likewise said, all men are created equal. So what does that mean . How does it cash out . Well, theres a problem. One might even say theres a selfevident problem with this idea of equality. In the 19th century as this country was moving toward civil war, a congressman from indiana describes the truths of the declaration of independence as selfevident lies. And he was referring particularly to the equality truth. A selfevident lie. So what exactly does it mean . One could say, for instance, one could say that equality is a chimera, it doesnt really exist. Look into the world in which we live here now today. Do we see do you see equality . Do i see equality right now as im sitting here standing here in this room looking at all of you . I dont see equality. I see differences and differences dont necessarily mean equality. I know for a fact in this room right now there is tall and short, there is strong and weak. There is fast and slow. And surely there are differences, there are intellectual differences amongst even the people sitting here in this room. And im also 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 selfevident lie . Jefferson himself and john adams recognized that there is a natural difference between men, grounds which he said are virtue and talent. Its going to mean inequality. Why does the declaration say all men are created unequal . Because that would seem to be just as true as saying all men are created equal. So we have to ask the question. What did jefferson mean by the principle of equality . For jefferson equality does not mean quantitative sameness. We are not all the same in terms of measurable characteristics and quality. Were just not. I just watched this past weekend christian coalman win the 100meter dash at the world track and field championship. As much as i would like to think im as fast, the fact is, i am not. And i am not as strong, right, as the greatest weight lifter in the world. I am not as handsome as brad pitt. I am not as intelligent as einstein. So in terms of measurable qualities, we are not the same. We are different. So what does equality mean . I think for jefferson, equality means what i call qualitative sameness versus quantitative sameness. What do i mean by quantitative sameness . We all share certain qualities as human beings. We are all members of the same species as defined by having two fundamental characteristics namely reason and free will. By virtue of us having reason and free will, we are all the same relative to dogs and horses, for instance. So what is equality for jefferson and the Founding Fathers . Equality means that we have an equal right to selfgovernment. We have an equal right to selfgovernment because we are selfowning and selfgoverning individuals. Just as there are no natural rulers in the world, there are no natural slaves. Theres not a natural right to rule and there are no natural slaves. As jefferson once put it in a letter, quote, because sir isaac newton was superiors in others to understanding, he was not lord of the person or property of others, close quote. Equality then means we have an equal right. Equality is it really should be an adjective, an adjective to right. Equality means equal rights. All right. Now onto the second selfevident truth. I think it is the core truth. It says they are endowed by their creator with certain unailable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, this truth, i think too many of us take to be so obvious that we dont actually think about what it really means. For instance, when i often ask students what rights are, the typical answer is, well, rights are life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness. No, thats not what rights are. Those are particular instances of what rights are. That is not a definition of what rights are. So thats the question we have to ask. What is a right . What are the characteristics of rights . Where do they come from . Im going to try to answer the first question and part of the second, but i the third question i think is much more complex and above my pay grade. But im going to try to answer what a right is and what the characteristics of rights are. It is clear that the declaration says that we are endowed by our creator with rights. So for the declaration, the source of rights is mans creator. That is undisputably true. But i also think its true that most American Revolutionaries spoke of unailable natural rights. The one thing whether you believe in god or dont believe in god, one thing they all believed in was the idea that there are rights of nature. Everybody believes that. We can at the very least we can say that is the source of rights namely nature. And we can, as some revolutionaries did, dispute whether theres a deeper source. What are rights . To answer that question, i think you have to begin with two basic assumptions about human nature. And these clearly are the assumptions that were held by American Revolutionaries. And the first is that the individual is the primary unit of moral and political value. And the second assumption was their rejection of the issue nation of physical force. The idea of rights should be seen in opposition to the principle of force. And more particularly, the initiation of force. If i walk up to you and punch you in the nose, right, i have initiated physical force against you. If i tie you up to a tree, i have initiated physical force. The concept of rights, the rights of nature, the rights of man, was the concept itself was developed largely in the 17th century, mostly at the beginning and developed in the 18th century and particularly really fleshed out by American Revolutionaries. It begins with the primary unit of value and it rejects the initiation of physical force as a value. Now we can turn to a definition. How did American Revolutionaries understand how did they define the concept of rights . Well, ive read scores of pamphlets and essays and newspaper articles, probably hundreds of newspaper articles on from the 1760s and 1770s and 80s, and what im going to present now to you is a definition that essentially emerged with American Revolutionaries in the period leading up to 1776. What is a right . A right is a moral principle defining the sphere or spheres of freedom that are necessary for humans flourishing within the context of civil society. Thats what a right is. It defines spheres of freedom and you can look at rights and in defining these spheres of freedom, you can look at the concept of rights as having two primary characteristics. In one sense, rights are like a license. They are they are a license to act. Its concerned with the freedom of action. We can also look at rights in a sense as a fence. A fence around each and every individual. Rights are in part protective. They protect us from those who initiate force against us. So that, i think, is a pretty decent definition from the perspective of American Revolutionaries of what rights are. All right. Lets now drill down even more deeply into this second selfevident truth and look at the various rights of nature. And the first right, of course, which is the most fundamental of all rights is the right to life. What is the right to life . What does that actually mean . What does it actually imply . It says that individuals are sovereign over their own lives. What does it mean to say that youre sovereign over your own life . It means that each and every individual is selfowning and selfgoverning. And that life is sacrosanct and also embedded in it is the moral right for each and every individual to pursue those values which promote their lives. All right. What about the right to liberty . What is the right to liberty . The right to liberty means a kind of unobstructed freedom to think, choose, act, produce and acquire both material and spiritual value. Its unobstructed freedom although constrained by the right to liberty of other individuals. All right, now the declaration of independence does not include a right a natural right for liberty. But im going to include it basically because Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration believes that property was just as much a fundamental right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and because all of americas Founding Fathers did. But for complicated reasons which we dont fully understand, he did not include the right to property in the declaration of independence. But every jefferson himself and every other founding father included property as the linchpin right, the linchpin between life and liberty on the one hand and the pursuit of happiness on the other. What is the right to property . It means its a freedom to keep, use and dispose of the products of ones physical and mental labor. All right. For those of you who have read chapter five on property, the idea is that when you mix your labor both intelligence you can claim it as your property because it is now an extension of you. All right. Finally the last right 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 doesnt appear in virtually any of the other bills of rights with the exception of virginias bill of rights. The formulation seems to be in part at least unique to jefferson and himself. But i think he actually gets this idea of the pursuit of happiness from john locks essay concerning human understanding. What does the right to the pure suit of happiness means . The right to property, it means freedom. Its the freedom to choose and pursue those values that lead to ones happiness. Now, there are different kinds of happiness of course. As john lock and Thomas Jefferson both said, theres what both lock and jefferson called real or true happiness which tends to be a kind of spiritual consequence of achieving certain longterm goals and values. Of course theres shortterm happiness which is the kind of physical pleasure. The pleasure, the happiness that you get from eating a good steak or having ice cream. But thats thats not really whats being meant here. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit and the achievement of ones highest values. Let me just add one important point here. In a sense, the most interesting word is pursuit. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness, per se. You have only the right to pursue. And jefferson and all of the other Founding Fathers understood this right to 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. So this is not some kind of pursuit of happiness. Quite the opposite, the pursuit of happiness implies, indeed it implores that individuals be virtuous. All right. Now, onto the third selfevident truth. And in many ways this third selfevident truth is the most complex i would say of the four. It actually embodies several principles. Ive identified the one word that ive identified with the third selfevident truth is consent, but it could equally be government or limited government or constitutionalism. Its a this third truth is a complex concept. It says, quote, to secure these rights governments are instituted among men driving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If you just stop and think about what that means, you can actually take this one truth, the one clause of the larger sentence and break it down into its component parts. What is this third truth mean . Well, the first thing it 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. And what rights does it mean . It means the rights contained in the second selfevident truth, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which includes the right to property. So thats it. And that creates its a purpose its the sole purpose of government is to protect rights, that means by definition a very limited kind of government and that takes us then 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 they believed that there is a legitimate role for government to play in a free society and that legitimate role of course 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 built into this third truth is that familiar certain kinds of governments which protect rights better than others. And what kinds of governments are those . Well, i think im this is somewhat reading between the lines, but its only reading between the lines because ive read just about every word Thomas Jefferson and john adams and James Madison ever wrote and i think i have a pretty good a pretty clear idea about what they meant by government. They meant a government that has the protection of rights, they meant constitutional government. And they meant a Constitutional Republic. And what is a Constitutional Republic . It is one that is based on we 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. Now, built into this part of the third truth, right, obviously is the idea of consent. And this comes out of the revolutionary crisis, right . No taxation without representation, which means no taxation without the consent of the people. So the principle of consent is at the heart of the American Revolution and more specifically the declaration of independence and consent is a principle. Its a principle that is kind of its the kind of principle that unites and connects p. Rights on one hand but government on the other. Consent is the link between rights and government. And the principle of consent as it is institutionalized is in the form of the principle of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the principle which defines where the power of government ultimately rests. Of course, as we have seen in this class all semester, right, the whole question between establish officials and american patriots was in part over the question of where does sovereignty rest . Does sovereignty rest in parliament or does sovereignty rest in the colonial charters and in the Colonial Legislature . The principle of consent also implies one other political principle which is representation. And representation is the core principle defining republican government. So this third truth establishes or implies i think a Constitutional Republic as the ideal form of government. All right. Lets now go to the fourth selfevident truth which reads whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institution new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Well this fourth selfevident truth is also very complex like the third selfevident truth and its so complex, right, that its not obviously selfevident. But its selfevident only in the sense that it builds on the third several evident truth and the third selfevident builds on the second and the second builds on the first and theyre held together as an a unity. If you understand the first selfevident truth and the principle of equality can be understood as being selfevident in some way, and then by logical deduction you go from the first, second, third and the fourth which i call the revolution truth. What is this right to revolution . I will say the declaration does not use this word revolution. It talks about altering or abolishing. But in effect it means revolution. And the right to revolution calls i think for two kinds of action. The first action is destructive and the second is constructive. So if you read the fourth selfevident truth, the first part of that sentence the first part of that sentence says that whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Thats the destructive part. What that means, its what i call negative consent or consent withdrawn. Its when the people with draw their consent to be ruled or governed by this particular government. And revolution in this context becomes justified when governments become tyrannical. And 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 how george the third and the British Parliament have established a tyranny. The second part of this fourth selfevident truth says, quote, to Institute New government to effect their safety and happiness. That is a construct its the power on the basis of consent, consent given to create government. So on the one hand, you abolish, you alter or abolish an old government, but on the other hand you create, establish a new government. And the declaration suggests that and it uses the word whenever any form of government, right. It turns out that literally any kind of government can become destructive of rights including democracy or republicanism and it also em plies that you can have a government that protects the rights of individuals, thats not necessarily a republic. You could have a government like the government of england. All right. The right of revolution has to be tempered and the very next word after the right to revolution is the word prudent. It says prudence will dictate the governments longestablished, should not be changed for light and transient causes. What this means is, the right to revolution is not is not absolute or unlimited. It has to be used prudently. So the question that you have to ask yourself is, for instance, would it have been prudent to launch a revolution against the British Government in 1765 after the panckage of the stamp act. 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 tea act. 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, yes, we have the grounds for establishing a revolution. But, still, its prudence dictates that even in 1774 that may be too early. There is a real question about when revolutions are launched. And you cant be some radical yahoo who decides he doesnt like the five cent tax on his soda ha hes going to launch a revolution. That would be imprudent. All right. Im coming close now to the end. I want to end this talk by talking about the moral logic of the American Revolution or more precisely, the moral logic contained in the declaration of independence. If you remember now earlier in this talk when we were examining the first paragraph, in fact, the very first words of the declaration of independence, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political band that have connected them with another. Right . What could that possibly mean to say that its necessary when the course of human events it becomes necessary. Necessary, as i said, implies that it must be. 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 . Well, its necessary now skipping to the first or into the second sentence of the declaration. The declaration says after the prudence sentence, when a long train of abuses pursuing the same object creates a design to reduce them under absolutely decemb is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government. Yes, they have the right but more fundamentally jefferson and the authors are saying we have a duty. In the same way theyre saying it is necessary that we dissolve the political bands that have connected us to one another. Its a duty. How is it necessary . How is it a duty for them to declare independence . And then on top of that they pledged their lives, their 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 believe that if you hold certain moral principles, then it is necessary that you act in a certain way. You can hear it in philosophic terms whats called a conditional imperative. If given then conditional imperative. If you believe in 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 principle. That is, i think, the moral logic which is impelling American Revolutionaries. All right, so, to sum up, what does all of this mean . What is the meaning . Whats the ultimate meaning of the declaration of independence . Well, i think it can be summed up in the words of Abraham Lincoln who in 1957 on his opinion on the dred scott position 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. And i think thats exactly what the declaration is. Its a standard maxim for a free society which should be familiar to all and revered by all. Constantly looked to, constantly labored for and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. And i think thats what the declaration of independence does. It establishes a standard maxim for a free society by which we can judge tyranny and it turn turns out not just the tyranny of george the third but also the tyranny of 19th century southern slave holders. Because it is the declaration which is the standard maxim of a free society for the abolitionists. Let me close with these last with a few words from i think americas poet robert frost in his poem called the black cottage. Thats a hard mystery of jefferson. What did he mean . Of course the easy way is to decide it simply isnt true. It may not be. I heard a fellow say so. Never mind. They got it planted where it will trouble us 1,000 years. And i think thats 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 all of the intellectual and certainly all of the political debates in this country for 235 years have basically in one way or another been a debate over how to interpret the Core Principles of the declaration of independence. In particular the selfevident truths of equality and the selfevident truths of rights. And just here now today in the United States in 2019, the political controversies of this country today, at the deepest philosophic level, really come down to those two concepts, to those two selfevident truths of equality and rights. And like the revolutionary generation of 1776, i think its your responsibility to dedicate your lives, your fortune and your sacred honor to keeping alive the ideals of the declaration of independence. Thank you. Were done and i will see you all on monday. Come you ing up, a look at rights expanded in there 70s, and later the different opinions of the Founding Fathers on how the u. S. West should be handled and how the laws changed depending on who had influence. Were featuring americAmerican History tv programs in prime time as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight well show you an academic tour of the big ten conference from our lectures in history series with classes from purdue, rutgers, michigan, and nebraska. University of maryland professor leads auoff with a class about power. American history tv, tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. We take you now to the university of North Carolina at chapel hill for a history lecture on expanding rights in the 1960s and 70s. Youll learn about how the womens liberation and gay rights movements began and managed to expand into public acceptance. The rights of revolution today. Lets start with a story. 1963, this woman sherry was featured in a life magazine article. You see her up here from the article. The story was about a choice