Every Fourth of July we always interface with the same old tired and increasingly meaningless traditions that occur across the country. Today countless people will mindlessly copy/paste the second sentence of the declaration of independence on their social media profile and at gatherings around the country the preamble to the declaration of independence will be read aloud to crowds of people who aren’t listening and don’t care— they are gearing up to watch the fireworks... Which is entirely understandable. We all love fireworks. After all, they’re real loud and they make things far away blow up real good. What’s not to love?
My point is that all across the country, all those public readings of this document are merely sound and fury sanctifying nothing. And on those rare instances where we see anyone go beyond simple recitation of pieces and parts what is offered up is just a superficial look at the general philosophical principles like unalienable rights, the rule of law and the pursuit of happiness…
Which are important values worth honoring. But, as so often happens, the more we thoughtlessly hear and mindlessly repeat familiar concepts like those the more their meaning degrades into a shallow and pedantic approximation of itself.
They don’t gain importance— In fact, they do quite the opposite.
So I want to shake things up a bit and give you a very different examination of the meaning, purpose and importance of the Declaration of Independence. Rather than giving yet another mere recitation and shallow look at the philosophical framework contained therein-- what I want to do is discuss one particular concept that can be found right in this document, next to the all-too-familiar concepts we all recognize. There is an important message here, hiding in plain sight that history overlooks and scholars refuse to acknowledge.
The Declaration’s Overlooked Philosophical Framework
Most of the Declaration’s foundational values are in its statement of general philosophy. It’s this part of the document that sets forth the American common creed:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 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.”
This section contains an eloquent statement of the theory of natural rights underlying the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89, as propounded by, among others, John Locke (1632–1704).
The first step to understanding this theory is to know that the word “right” had a broader scope than it does today. When we think of an individual right, we usually think of immunity from government interference with some activity we choose to undertake. Thus, when we refer to the right of free speech, we usually mean we’re immune from punishment for speaking our minds. To the founding generation, however, the term “right” also could mean a power or prerogative.
According to this theory, these rights/powers are bestowed by nature upon all individuals. In a primitive state of nature, a person’s rights/powers included all those actions of which he or she was capable. These included self-defense, freedom of conscience, providing for oneself and one’s family, and affecting others for good or for ill. They also included the more mundane choices of daily life, such as whether to wear a hat and what time to get up in the morning. The number of rights/powers was limitless.
The powers of governors are fiduciary in character; the trustees are necessarily and properly accountable to those who have vested trust in them
Prudence Dictated
Thus, according to the Declaration a government that didn’t protect its citizens’ unalienable rights was a bad government. However, the right of revolution didn’t ensue as soon as a government turned bad. The Founders understood that departing from tradition and from established institutions entailed costs. Revolution could inflict more harm than it cured. Thus, the Declaration also reflects the value of prudence:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”
Prudence counseled trying other methods of cure before resorting to revolution. The Founders didn’t rebel at the first signs of British overreaching in 1763, nor even in the face of significant provocation in 1773 or 1774. Instead, they employed the procedures provided by the unwritten British constitution: public remonstrance, persuasion through the free press, petitions and resolutions, pressure on Parliament, and peaceful (and sometimes not-so-peaceful) civil disobedience.
Rebellion arose only after these methods proved futile and the colonists had proof of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object”—“a design to reduce them under absolute despotism ….”
At that point, it became “their right … their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Americans had reached a time when revolution was not merely an option, but an obligation.
The Right of Revolution
When reading the Declaration, it is worth keeping in mind two very important facts—
That document constituted high treason against the Crown. Every person who signed it knew they would be executed as traitors should they be caught by the British.
The Declaration was considered to be a legal document by which the revolutionaries justified their actions and explained why they were not truly traitors.
It represented, as it were, a literal indictment of the Crown and Parliament, in the very same way that criminals are now publicly indicted for their alleged crimes by grand juries representing "the People."
Let us always remember that treason is the reason for the season.
This is a document that not only condones but passionately advocates rebellion, sedition and treason. This is not to say that armed rebellions or treasonous acts are always justified. Usually they are not.
However, while the right to act in a rebellious and treasonous manner cannot be assumed to be justified, we can assume the right to publicly contemplate their use and justification. To consider the possibility that it is time to alter, or abolish our system of government with whatever level of force is required (but no more than is necessary) to bring about that change.
Despite Joe Biden’s claim: “You can’t be pro insurrection and pro America” the fact is you can. Indeed there may be times where you can’t not be pro insurrection and pro America.
It is to secure our rights that governments are instituted among men. Just as an individual may take whatever actions he deems necessary to ward off his destruction or the perceived threat of his destruction, so too may a people act in their self-defense against a magistrate's lawlessness or viciousness:
Whatever is lawful against a thief, who submits to no law,
is lawful against him [a magistrate] who submits to no law.
~Algernon Sidney, Discourses concerning Government 1698
The American experience shows the colonists to have been the true inheritors of the spirit of the Glorious Revolution— and quicker learners of Locke's lessons than the ministers of George III. The complex of grievances and restless stirrings that agitated the Americans in the 1760s and beyond had sent their ablest men to their libraries and their writing desks. But by the mid-seventies events had reached a point where entreaties were futile and researches "among old parchments, or musty records" superfluous.
When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded.~Alexander Hamilton, A Farmer Refuted (23 February 1775)
While the use of force and/or coercion itself isn’t always justified, its immediate predecessor is—
Sedition.
As I have argued before in past videos and articles, not only is sedition not a bad thing, sedition is a virtue— it is a uniquely American virtue.
Thomas Jefferson and the Force of Public Opinion
This is evident in my most favorite of all Thomas Jefferson anecdotes.
In 1804, the celebrated traveler, Baron Humboldt, called on the President one day, and was received into his office. On taking up one of the public journals which lay upon the table, he was shocked to find its columns teeming with the most wanton abuse and licentious calumnies of the President. He threw it down with indignation, exclaiming,
"Why do you not have the fellow hung who dares to write these abominable lies?"
The President smiled at the warmth of the Baron, and replied—
"What! hang the guardians of the public morals? No sir,—rather would I protect the spirit of freedom which dictates even that degree of abuse. Put that paper into your pocket my friend, carry it with you to Europe— and when you hear anyone doubt the reality of American freedom, show them that paper, and tell them where you found it. Sir, the country where public men are amenable to public opinion; where not only their official measures, but their private morals, are open to the scrutiny and animadversion of every citizen, is more secure from despotism and corruption, than it could be rendered by the wisest code of laws, or best formed constitution. Party spirit may sometimes blacken, and its erroneous opinions may sometimes injure; but, in general, it will prove the best guardian of a pure and wise administration; it will detect and expose vice and corruption, check the encroachments of power, and resist oppression; sir, it is an abler protector of the people's rights, than arms or laws."
At this, the Baron replied:
"But is it not shocking that virtuous characters should be defamed?"
Jefferson responded:
"Let their actions refute such libels. Believe me, virtue is not long darkened by the clouds of calumny, and the temporary pain which it causes is infinitely overweighed by the safety it insures against degeneracy in the principles and conduct of public functionaries. When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property, and justly liable to the inspection and vigilance of public opinion; and the more sensibly he is made to feel his dependence, the less danger will there be of his abuse of power, which is that rock on which good governments, and the people's rights, have been so often wrecked.”
[from Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson (1832) by B. L. Rayner]
How have we sunk so low that Jefferson’s current successor can go unchallenged when saying something like:
At a time where the following is spoken of as an armed, and violent uprising:
… I would not be surprised if this article was spoken about as an act of treason.
While I wouldn’t say I agree with that conclusion, what I will say is this:
…If this be treason, make the most of it.
Happy Independence Day!
and
Cartago Delenda Est.
So very well said.