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]

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

To justify treason against the Crown.

[Chode]

The Declaration, Perry reminds us, was an ex post facto justification of American beliefs. It was addressed to educated elite opinion, especially abroad; it was designed to win arguments, not to capture the essence of Americanism as Americans themselves already understood it.

[RC2]

I think what our founders were saying about inalienable rights being self-evident, is that through the centuries they were being ignored. This was the first time that a country actually put them in writing so that a nation could be formed around those ideals.

[Jacquerie]

Only Huck would take time away from p!ssing on our Constitution to do the same to our Declaration on Independence Day.

[An.American.Expatriate]

What if "these truths" are not "self evident" to all men?

It is of no importance whether any one particular person or group of persons believe the "truths" to be "self evident". The Declaration states "WE hold these truths ..." (emphasis on WE).

In other words - the signatories to the Delcaration were stating quite clearly that THEY believed that the truths were unable to be contradicted and thus, for them, something worth fighting for!

Most people forget what the Declaration really was - it was the justification of the signatories as to WHY they sought independence from England - in hopes that other nations (mostly France) would come to thier aid.

[PGalt]

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. - George Washington 1732-1799

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

[Jacquerie]

So, according to you, not only were Washington, Jay, Hamilton, Madison, etc, rogues and liars, but all of the brave men who signed their possible death warrant in July 1776 as well.

[Flag_This]

"They weren't self-evident to George Washington when he was busy buying and lording over his slaves."

Why are you complaining about Washington, not Jefferson - since Jefferson wrote the Declaration and owned slaves until he died?

[Artemis Webb]

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

"That has nothing to do with what I'm saying."

It is interesting to me that you don't dispute Jacquerie's accusation that you are using a "leftist non-argument". You don't deny it's a leftist opinion at all. You simply say "That has nothing to do with what I'm saying".

[Huck]

No.

[Huck]

I dismissed it out of hand.

[Jacquerie]

Besides Henry and Yates, can you name any other honorable men of notoriety in the founding era?

[Artemis Webb]

So let me ask you this:

Did you wake up this morning and say, “Hey, it’s Independence Day! I think I’ll go on FR and badmouth the Founding Fathers!” Why don’t you go burn a flag while you’re at it.

[Jacquerie]

Today is only a distraction. On most days his apparent duty is to p!ss on our Constitution and its authors.

[RC2]

I think that the intent of people doing this is not to try and understand our Founders but to tear our country apart by tearing apart the Constitution and the DoI and the Founding Fathers. No matter what they say, it does not change the fact that the Constitution and the DoI is there and will stay there. Their comments won’t change that.

[RC2]

Have Huck go to a local Rodeo and burn a flag. Then watch what happens. Huck, I’m sure, has seen Cowboy and Indian wars, I doubt he has see Cowboy and Flag Burner wars.

[Steely Tom]

In other words - the signatories to the Delcaration were stating quite clearly that THEY believed that the truths were unable to be contradicted and thus, for them, something worth fighting for!

Thanks for the very nicely stated correction to a basic premise of my statement. You are right, of course.

However.

If the truths "WE hold" are not self-evident to a majority of voters in a democracy (or even a Republic such as we are in the process of transitioning away from), then it's inevitable that the freedoms we've enjoyed under our Constitution will pass away.

[Oceander]

I'm simply pointing out that history shows quite clearly those rights were not self-evident.

Actually, you're not even doing that - you haven't even accomplished your stated point. 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.

As for the rest of it - I can start from stated assumptions and draw the conclusions they are supposed to imply, which is why I am disputing your premises, stated and unstated, rather than playing the fools' game of granting your assumtions and premises and trying to argue on a biased field. That is a classic Alinsky tactic.

Perhaps you ought to take up golf instead?

[traditional1]

"Self-evident"

In my estimation, I always thought it meant it was obvious to anyone with a calibrated moral compass and some common sense, that the "truths" were a simple judgement of knowing right vs. wrong. It's not rocket science, political correctness, or word-parsing propoganda that is self-evident; it's common sense.

[r9etb]

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

Because their arguments couldn't work unless they claimed it.

Just to be clear: the claim of self-evidence was not applied to the rights themselves, but the fact that they were granted by a Creator.

This is a very important point: those principles held out as unalienable rights, cannot be derived from first principles, nor from observation of the natural world.

In many or most respects, among humans or among any other combination of species, the world seems to operate very nicely on a principle of Might Makes Right.

So how does one arrive at the opposite pole that people, individually, have rights? One invokes a Creator Who makes a rule like that. (As it happens, I believe this to be true.)

Ayn Rand's philosophy collapses on this point, in that she attempted to derive the unalienable rights apart from a creator; but she failed. In effect, she was forced to put herself, and her own assertions, into the same Creator role that she had so stridently rejected.

The bottom line, though, is that those unalienable rights don't simply spring up like laws of nature. They have to come from somewhere -- to be asserted.