Does the Declaration of Independence Tell the Truth? (How are these truths "self-evident" ?)

American Thinker ^ | 07/04/2010 | E. Jeffrey Ludwig

[SeekAndFind]

At this time of the year, while most U.S. citizens are contemplating U.S. independence and the Declaration of Independence, I ask myself why, in 19 years of teaching in the New York Public Schools, I have not once heard the students gathered to sing in any assembly or forum "America the Beautiful," " God Bless America," or "My Country ‘Tis of Thee?"  The National Anthem has only been sung once a year at the graduation ceremonies. 

This serious omission of patriotic fervor can be attributed to the leftist influence on the school system.  Most leftists believe the Declaration of Independence was primarily a document driven by the class interests of the signers. The gentry and economically powerful merchant groups in the U.S. and the aristocratic southern plantation economy joined forces against powerful interests in the mother country that would limit their growth, their economic well-being, and their power.  Talk about inalienable rights, equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were rationalizations for underlying issues of class and status. Charles and Mary Beard had set the stage for this analysis, and it has been carried forward by Howard Zinn's Peoples' History of the United States. Are they correct?

First, a caveat: even if the document were a justification of class interests in part, would that be so wrong?  If we have an economic leadership based on wealth amassed through faith, hard work, determination, and intelligence, then is it not just for them to defend that wealth and influence from usurpations by those who would unlawfully take said wealth and influence away from them? The truth of "no taxation without representation" is a valid truth, but it certainly oversimplifies the dynamics behind the Declaration of Independence.

Let us consider one of the more contentious statements of the Declaration:

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;...

John Locke in his treatises on government made a cogent analysis of the body politic, and stressed that life, liberty and property could best be protected if the locus of power in the government lay with the representatives of the people rather than with the executive -- in his context: the monarchy. The signers of the Declaration, aware of the moral ambiguities of slavery in the American context, deleted the word "property" and preferred to substitute "pursuit of happiness."  They introduced this Aristotelian goal in order (1) to acknowledge the existence of a summum bonum, (2) to point to the unity of happiness and virtue (happiness for Aristotle was arrived at by strenuous contemplation and implementation of virtue, and was not, as in our times, associated with hedonism or with "self-fulfillment" a la Abraham Maslow), and (3) to introduce the idea of the newly independent USA as a land of opportunity, both economically and politically. How can this be offensive?

Although the Declaration was not in one accord with the 17^th century Westminster Shorter Catechism that announced the purpose of life to be "to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever," by insisting that the values expressed were "endowed by their Creator" we can see that the Declaration is an echo of the earlier Westminster document.  The language suggests to me that the Declaration was deeply rooted in Protestant theology more than in class interests.

What about the self-evidence of the truths claimed in our founding document? This assertion is directly out of the rationalist enlightenment playbook.  R. Descartes had affirmed that he could only believe truths that were "clear and distinct." To be clear and distinct they had to meet the challenge of his method of doubt.  If there were any possibility that the truths he perceived could be contingent or could be based on misperception, they would be excluded. Through experience and various other mechanisms, J. Locke's empiricism believed that certainty could be arrived at through experience, science, and intuition.

While these self-evident truths for the signers were not the same as revealed truth as found in Holy Scripture; yet they are "endowed" to all men by God the Creator. In theological language, they would be considered part of common grace, whereas for the believing Christian the Bible comes under special or revealed grace. Thus, the Bible tells us that the rain falls equally on the just and the unjust, and in similar fashion all men are endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Almighty God must be assumed because without Him, how could one explain that all men are so endowed?

As we contemplate our independence as a nation and the exercise of our inalienable rights, as we sing hosannas of gratitude for these blessings, let us remember to also reject all Marxist views that would depreciate the values of the Declaration.

[Huck]

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;...

They weren't self-evident to George Washington when he was busy buying and lording over his slaves. He didn't give it a second thought until some of his wiser buddies started educating him a little bit. He came around by the time he died, and freed his slaves in his will, after he didn't need them anymore.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Your display of absolute ignorance about the man and the times is sick making.

Go read a book.

[Huck]

Where do you think I got the information? I recommend His Excellency by Joseph Ellis. I've read it twice. McCullough's 1776 is also excellent.

[Jacquerie]

Yours is the typrical Leftist non-argument. The US had slavery, therefore the US is bad, get rid of the US.

[RC2]

I agree. What this person doesn’t know about Washington is amazing. George Washington was known for buying slaves from others so that their families wouldn’t be seperated, so that the slaves wouldn’t be whipped to death. Slavery was a sign of the times and couldn’t have been changed by one individual but Washington worked to change the situation.

[Steely Tom]

This is a very serious issue that has been on my mind for some years now. I've not seen it put as it is in this article, but the question in the article's title sums it up.

What if the founders were wrong about this? What if "these truths" are not "self evident" to all men?

As I've gotten older, I've come to the realization that many ideas, ways of thinking, that I grew up believing were shared by everyone, are anything but universal. I don't mean "belief in G-d" here. I mean things like a belief in truth. In the concept of truth. In the concept of reality. In the concept of causality, that if you do "X," that "Y" must necessarily follow. And it's corollary; that if "Y" happens to you, it is probably because you did "X" last month, or yesterday, or three seconds ago.

These ideas are held by many in America and around the world, but the number of people who do not hold them is shockingly large, and seems to be growing.

I disagree with Ayn Rand on some fundamental aspects of her philosophy, but she was right about this one when she wrote "man is the only creature that has to make a conscious choice, every day, whether or not to be human."

[Oceander]

They weren't self-evident to George Washington when he was busy buying and lording over his slaves. He didn't give it a second thought until some of his wiser buddies started educating him a little bit. He came around by the time he died, and freed his slaves in his will, after he didn't need them anymore.

They were self-evident; Geo. Washington was merely (a) a man of his times and a sinner in need of redemption, just like the rest of us (yourself most especially included), and (b) in error because slaves weren't "men" in the sense the term was used in that phrase (again, because he was a sinner in need of redemption).

Nothing you've said in the least denigrates that phrase nor the fact that we should live up to it.

But, to address your implicit Alinskyism - the equality spoken of here is equality of spirit, of freedom to do, and most definitely not equality of material conditions or equality of result, so the fact that there are still rich people and poor people in this country does not demean either that phrase or this country one iota.

[Huck]

Yours is the typrical Leftist non-argument. The US had slavery, therefore the US is bad, get rid of the US.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The question is whether or not our inalienable rights are self-evident. It's a historical fact that they weren't, even at the time the words were written.

[Huck]

They were self-evident;

Actually, they weren't. Not to everyone. Washington came around, but he needed to be educated on the subject.

[Jacquerie]

Your alter ego, Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution in large part because he felt it presented a threat to southern “property.”

[discostu]

Just because various people have violated the inalienable rights of others doesn’t mean they aren’t self-evident. It means they’re not self-enforcing. People, being fallible, can and do go against things they know to be obviously true (self-evident), as any smoker, drinker, or adventure sport participant can attest.

[Huck]

equality of spirit, of freedom to do, and most definitely not equality of material conditions or equality of result, so the fact that there are still rich people and poor people in this country does not demean either that phrase or this country one iota.

I don't have any quarrel with rich people. I'm not arguing for equal outcomes. Where did I say that? It's obvious, however, that slavery was a complete violation of "freedom to do." And I'm not arguing against our rights. I'm simply pointing out that history shows quite clearly those rights were not self-evident.

[Huck]

That’s true. He was a typical Virginia slaver.

[Huck]

Just because various people have violated the inalienable rights of others doesn’t mean they aren’t self-evident.

That's true. It doesn't mean they are, either. In Washington's case, from my reading, it appears he had no qualms whatsoever about slavery for the first half of his life. It was only later, at the prodding of others, that he began to see the light. Up until that point, his slaves were his property and he dealt with them as such. They were a notch above mules.

[Huck]

It’s actually a very interesting question—are human rights self-evident. I used to ask the same question the opposite way—how do we know slavery is wrong. Prove it. Why shouldn’t the strong rule the weak? I’m not saying I favor such a scheme (it’s not in my self-interest), but how does one prove that rights exist, or that they are self-evident. It’s easy to proclaim them, but try proving it.

[RC2]

“They’re complaining about the deficit.” As are most Democrats that are complaining about their own Party and their spending habits in the government.

You compare the thinking of Washington’s days to the thinking of today. That’s like comparing Ancient Romes thinking to today. Doesn’t work. If it did, our education over the centuries doesn’t mean a thing.

[Jacquerie]

You don’t have a clue. The philosophy of Creator given, self evident rights derived by man’s right reason began with Aristotle, followed by Cicero, Aquinas, Locke and others.

It is the abandonment of Natural Rights that is the adoption of tyranny.

[Huck]

You compare the thinking of Washington’s days to the thinking of today. That’s like comparing Ancient Romes thinking to today.

Which proves my point--that the inalienable rights proclaimed in the DoI were not at that time self-evident. I'm not chastising Washington. Just observing the fact that human rights were not self-evident.

[Jacquerie]

If they were not self evident, why did dozens of educated men say they were?