Reading the Declaration of Independence

Today in the US we celebrate the passage of the Declaration of Independence, in 1776. The DoI was a remarkable document, acting to provide a justification for rebellion, laying out the Colonists’ case, and establishing a philosophical / political framework for what the new country — and all nations/governments — should be. It formalized into a political break what had been de facto the case for a year — war between Britain and America — but also was careful in its language to focus the war on the actions of George III, not the English nation as a whole (or Parliament in particular).  It was a distillation of Enlightenment thinking, and has influenced American rhetoric (and thought) in the 235 years since.

Here’s what I think …

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

As part of the heated debate over the DoI (both the idea of declaring independence, and the arguments to be used for it), it was agreed that it had to be passed unanimously.  It was, in fact — well, with twelve colonies voting in favor, and one (New York) abstaining.

The whole thing was much messier and complex than the charming 1776 has it (though that musical is still worth seeing if you get a chance).

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 Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Rebellion and revolution were not new, but “declaring the causes” out of a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” was.  Part of this was, of course, a means of enlisting foreign support (e.g., from the French, Dutch, or Spanish) for the revolution.  But part was a desire not come across as simple, petulant hot-heads throwing a political tantrum.

There’s an interesting mix — not all Jefferson’s — here of both secular and (at a distance) sacred.  This is taking place in the “course of human events,” not by divine mandate.  The new nation is entitled to exist by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” — a phrase as much at home amongst philsophers and Deists as those of a more personal religious nature.  There’s notably no invocation of the Bible, of Christ, of the Great Jehovah. Modern evangelical Republicans would be aghast at this kind of language coming from, say, the White House.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Probably one of the most famous phrases in US history, about which tons has been and can be written. Distilling down the Enlightenment concepts of humanity — not sinful fleshbots created to be mastered by a divine order of things, but independent agents that were  free, equal creations, each possessing as an intrinsic part of their creation fundamental rights: to live, to be free, and to be able to pursue their own happiness.

The DoI says that none of these can be taken away by the state (the irony of slaveholding, of oppression of women, etc., notwithstanding).  The DoI doesn’t declare that the state is responsible for providing the fulfillment of those rights, any more than the state (a government, a king) grants them — but it must not try to take them away without going against the basic, axiomatic nature of humanity and creation.

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The state’s role is not to graciously grant those rights — they already exist.  It’s role is to make sure that those rights are not infringed upon, by others or by itself. That’s why we build governments, what the “social contract” is about.  And those governments require a consent of the governed to be just.

–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If a government isn’t doing that job — indeed, when the state begins to threaten those inalienable rights — then the people have a right to kick the bums out and create a new government.

It’s a radical thought, and it carries with it a tension in American politics to this day.  Born of rebellion against an oppressive regime (at least by its own birth declaration), how does the US dare to oppose those who similarly rebel against it?  While the US (or the US government) has sometimes embraced that concept of rebellion (see dubious comparisons between the Nicaraguan Contras and “Freedom Fighters”), and the American mythos is founded on that first, great rebellion, just try suggesting that oppression by the government requires it to be replaced and …

Well, if you’re on the Left then you get labeled a Commie. If you’re on the Right you’re (carefully) hailed as a Tea Partying patriot.  Unless you try doing anything about it. So it goes.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Yeah, we don’t want a revolution every six months because someone’s corporate jet is being taxed too high.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

On the other hand, if it looks like the state is doing a crappy job, not by accident or folly, but through an intentional desire to ignore those fundamental rights and impose a despotism, then the people have not only a right but a responsibility to do something about it.

The issue, of course, is who bells the cat?  At what point does one say, “This is enough, time to march on the capitol!”? Are you proven to be correct if enough people agree with you?

–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Though Parliament really held the power, the DoI focuses on George III as the author of their problems. This is in part because pretty much nobody liked George, but also in part in hope that future negotiations could be made with the British Parliament (a number of whose members were friends of some of the Founders).  Plus, it’s easier to point at a king as the symbol of despotism, rather than the powers being exercised by an institution like Parliament.

The next part is the lengthy list of charges against the King to demonstrate he’s intentionally violated those inalienable rights, and thus has lost legitimacy as the colonists’ ruler. (There’s more analysis of the grievances, line-by-line, here.)

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Infamously, of course, a clause decrying how the King supported the slave trade was cropped out, due to the objection of some of the southern colonies.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Kings and governments are one thing; tyrants and despots cannot be tolerated.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

A quick note to British Parliament, that the colonists had not had any satisfaction from them, either.  This one’s a lot less inflammatory.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Again, much nicer language, with an olive branch held out for the future.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, …

The various delegations from the different colonies were chosen in different fashions, with different instructions.  That they could be construed to speak as representatives, with a single voice, was questionable in some eyes.

… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, …

The DoI has more religious language than the US Constitution (which essentially has none).  But where it’s present, it remains both literary and distant.  “The Supreme Judge” here, as an example, or “divine Providence” later.

… do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; …

Which was the text of Richard Henry Lee’s resolution from Virginia, which had been passed on 2 July.

… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

Though it took a decade-plus (and longer still since) for them to come up with an organized and effective means to do so — particularly in figuring out how much the states were “Free and Independent” amongst themselves.  The tension, inconsistency, advantages and problems of the federal system remain today.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

While the costs paid by the signers of the DoI have been subject to a bit of patriotic myth-making, nobody can doubt that at the time of the signing it was seen as a momentous, and quite potentially fatal, step.

Katherine studied the American Revolution this year, but I have to wonder how many adults in the US have looked at the Declaration of Independence in the last decades, and really parsed what it was about: a philosophical statement about what government should be, and a justification, based on that statement, as to why they were separating from the government that had been ruling them.

We tend to co-mingle the DoI and the Constitution these days, with folks thinking “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are part of the latter, or that the freedoms of the Bill of Rights are in the former.  With so much debate over the role of government these days, it might behoove people to give both documents a closer look.

More information:

• Wikipedia
• US National Archives
• Library of Congress (and in its Jefferson archive)