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.

[newfreep]

Why do liberals and their mindless ilk never mention the black Africans who made a fortune selling their brothers?

[Yardstick]

The self-evident truths line is rhetorical and proves nothing. It is a statement of the premises upon which the rest of the document rests, but they certainly can be disagreed with. At the time, the Enlightenment was in full swing and so a line like that could probably stand on its own, but in the last 200 years the notion of natural law and a rational basis for everything has taken a real beating.

That’s really the root of our problems, why we’re drifting away from the Constitution and our founding ideas: a lot of people are skeptical of them. Many people would agree with the UN Declaration on Human Rights as a better basis for establishing rights than the Declaration of Independence. It’s the whole positive versus negative rights thing. The former rejects natural law and the notion of self-evident unalienable rights established in nature or a Creator (i.e. outside of human will). FDR sealed the deal in 1944 with his New Bill of Rights which was a flat out rejection of the Declaration’s understanding of rights.

But that’s the nature of things. Words on a page and the ideas they express can’t last forever. There’s a kind of entropy that changes things, and ideas are delicate things. In order to maintain them, you almost have to build a cult around them, as the religions do. You have to develop ritual and dogma and have a committed priestly caste to maintain them and make sure they are passed on to the next generation intact. We have been too casual about maintaining our founding ideas for this to happen. However, given the natural flux of human understanding, I actually think our ideas have persisted remarkably well. What they have going for them in my opinion is that they are true, and therefore they tend to work, but even that’s not really enough.

[meyer]

The whole basis for race-based slavery was that the enslaved weren't "men" in the same way that the enslavers were - an attitude that has deep, deep historical roots (going as far back as the ancient Greeks, including those of Athens). Since, by the hypothesis of the day, the enslaved weren't "men," then it would necessarily follow from that hypothesis that those rights did not apply to the enslaved, no matter how self-evidently they applied to the enslavers.

It was, and is, that secondary hypothesis concerning the status of the once-enslaved as "men" that was in error, not the self-evidentness of the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Correct, and well-said.

The principals of our founding documents and the constitution are designed to prevent enslavement of one class of men over another. The flaw wasn't the document, it was the definition of "men". That has since been corrected. Those principals are largely being ignored by government these days, unfortunately. Witness the selective taxation of some individuals for the benefit of others - de facto enslavement in essence. The present use of government power to steal from the productive is in direct opposition to the tenets of the constitution of this country.

[Jacquerie]

those principles held out as unalienable rights, cannot be derived from first principles, nor from observation of the natural world.

Yes, the primary precepts are axiomatic, principles that one cannot not know, such as "avoid evil."

The secondary Natural Law precepts build on the primary, by man's right reason, such as the pursuit of happiness.

Regarding the natural world, the laws of motion and calculus discovered by Sir Isaac Newton were regarded as Natural Laws, a reflection of Eternal Law, discovered by man. This concept went well into the 19th century when what we call physics professors today described themselves as Natural Philosophers.

[meyer]

And give up my property and my livlihood? Why should I? Maybe I like it here. That doesn’t mean I’ve consented to this government. Neither have you. It was already here.

The option to leave exists, with all its benefits and consequences. Only you can decide on the costs and benefits of moving to another country.

BTW, "This government" is not that of a constitutional republic, and hasn't been for a good while. A good while longer than I've been here.

[denydenydeny]

So what exactly is your point? To remind us that Washington owned slaves? NS, Sherlock. WE KNOW. Because of the culture’s obsession with this detail, the average young person today is far more likely to know that GW owned slaves than to know what Saratoga or Valley Forge or the Farewell Address were.

[hcmama]

Are you a social studies teacher? Your worldview seems to be a product of one of our stellar education departments.

[Zeneta]

The self-evident truths line is rhetorical and proves nothing

I actually think our ideas have persisted remarkably well. What they have going for them in my opinion is that they are true,

I see they are Self-Evident to you. (and to me)

It seems to me that it is human nature to seek the truth, unless you are taught that there is no truth. But then how could that be true?

[rollo tomasi]

“Showing them that their faith was at odds with King George was key to the rebellion's success.”

With all due respect, the revolution's success came from the clan of your user name, the French, who despised the British Crown.

The work of Benjamin Franklin as well as the rest of the Committee of Correspondence in appeasing France were the keys to victory, not ideology. The French gradually funneled aid throughout the campaign and when the rebellious colonist started making strong gains against Britain, France went "full bore" knowing victory could be achieved against their hated rival.

The DOI was a strong statement of the rebellious colonists for the purposes of declaring their sovereignty, which France, the Netherlands and several other countries eventually recognized/aided. Spain helped indirectly as well, by pressuring Britain with a Franco/Spanish alliance. At home, many colonists of British North America were either opposed to the revolutionaries or just neutral/(The bane of society) moderates.

After the revolution and ratification of the new Constitution, the Federalist sought to censor the “limited government types”, who eventually morphed into the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalist/Pro-centralized power, became the very same people who they fought against, tyrants. Is tyranny and censorship self evident? There is a strong reason why the Federalist Party dissolved, the collapse was extremely self-evident.

[Yardstick]

I believe in those truths, but I don’t think they’re self evident. Some people think it’s self-evident that everyone has a right to a house or a job or whatever, which is just wrong. So the notion of self evidence is good in a rhetorical way, and it works when everyone agrees that the thing that’s claimed to be self evident is self evident, but it really kind of holds itself up by its own bootstraps and so isn’t exactly an immovable anchor.

True it’s human nature to seek the truth, but it’s also human nature be wrong about stuff. If the truth is to prevail and persist, it takes more than just letting people seek the truth. The truth has to be expounded and defended against untruth and it has to be pitched and sold and ingrained into people. Otherwise they’ll just wind up believing silly things. The fact that Barak Obama is president proves this.

Calvin Coolidge got it right in a great speech that he gave on the Fourth back in 1926:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2546810/posts

“””No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.”””

He says that if “we are to MAINTAIN the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it.....We must CULTIVATE the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. WE must KEEP REPLENISHED...”

Our principles are great and true, but we can’t rely on the notion that they’re self evident to maintain them. Instead we have to do the hard work of maintaining/cultivating/replenishing them. This is hard work, and especially hard for a pluralistic nation with a million things going on, but it has to be done by every generation. We can’t be casual about it or rest on our laurels or we’ll lose them.

[discostu]

Part of the problem with slavery in particular is that it’s taken vastly different forms in different times and places. Roman style slavery wasn’t that different from the “wage slavery” we have today. I remember when I was taking Latin one of the things we translated was the diary of a slave that worked for an aqueduct designer, in his diaries he complained that his owner really needed to get a wife because many of the demeaning wife work was falling to him.

American slavery though was pretty obviously wrong. Way too much violence, way too much reliance on racial prejudice and pseudo justification. Any time you have to regularly beat your workers and forbid them from gaining skills that could potentially benefit you you know you’re on the wrong path.

[Gator113]

You have given me a migraine with your rubbish. Might you now move the conversation into one of reparations? It seems like the logical progression of your apparent thought process on all of this.

As for me, I will go back to exercising my Liberty and Freedom in celebrating OUR independence and remembering those that bothered to form it, fight and die for it and even today—protect it.

YOU, of course, are FREE to insult the memory of our brave Founders. While I find it disgusting, that is certainly your right.

Had these brave men, including President Washington, not bothered to get together to begin what would become our Free Country, there might have been a slave or two out mowing my lawns right now, instead of my wife. hmmm

[Gator113]

I LOVE Rodeo’s.... I would pay extra to see that. ;>)

[Steely Tom]

Your post is one of the best I’ve ever read here at FreeRepublic, and that’s really saying something.

Your last paragraph is beautiful. Thank you.

[Gator113]

Because that would not fit with their “woe is me” narrative.

[Zeneta]

I do believe they are self-evident. Simply because I, you and all humans are provided with the ability of rational thought or the ability to reason. I don't care what your circumstance is, everybody has this innate ability. Does anyone think that slaves and their children accepted the bondage they knew as a truth? The way things are? Some, certainly may have.

The issue I see, is that many are simply not asking the right questions. When they start asking the right questions, they become liberated within their mind at first, and then in their actions and life pursuits.

It is no ones business to know or control what I am thinking.

I am FREE.

This IS self-evident and we are all born with it.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...”
-
“WE” meant the signatories of the document.
“ALL MEN” did not include American Indians, indentured servants, women, or slaves.

[Yardstick]

I do believe they are self-evident.

That's nice. But other people don't, which is the problem. And having a capacity for rational thought isn't enough. Nor is waiting around for people to ask the right questions and hoping they arrive at the right answers. You have to make the case for the truth, to argue for it, to expound on it and praise it, to persuade people so they can see it. This is not a passive thing. And by the way, doing so doesn't amount to "controlling what you're thinking". There is a difference between controlling and persuading.

[Artemis Webb]

The Declaration was not written to include the groups you mention but it embraces them none the less.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...but it embraces them none the less...”
-
Really?
How so?