Robert Maynard
Revisiting our vision of liberty and virtue
By Robert Maynard
The 20th Century has given rise to serious challenges to the American notion of human rights rooted in a vision of liberty and virtue. Cato Institute senior fellow Brink Lindsey points out in a September 28 2001 article entitled "The Last Totalitarians," that the various challenges we have faced are merely different versions of a totalitarian reaction to the American inspired ideology of freedom, which was sweeping the globe during the 19th Century. Osama Bin Laden and the radical Jihadist ideology he represents is just the latest reaction to our notion liberty under law.
The totalitarian ideologies that we have faced are merely extreme manifestations of a contrasting vision rooted in Utopian Collectivism. This vision sees society as one collective whole with its members merely parts of the whole. A utopian society is believed to be possible if we just had the right people in charge to "Socially Engineer" the public good. This is to be accomplished via government action from the top down. Unfortunately, a milder version of this notion has infected the thinking of much the "opinion shaping" cultural sectors and political leadership of Western society, the U.S. included.
It has gotten to the point that those Americans who oppose utopian schemes in the name of preserving our vision of liberty under law have come to be seen by that leadership as selfish reactionaries at best, or dangerous extremists at worst. They seem to forget that it is those who buy into the notion of Utopian Collectivism who are the real reactionaries.
Those who seek to preserve our constitutional rights need to keep this in mind and constantly remind the world that they are engaged in a pro-active attempt to revive that vision of liberty. Of course the aforementioned rights are enumerated in our Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was, however, a codification into law of certain principles held by our founders and their colonial predecessors. These principles were spelled out in the "Declaration of Independence." Understanding these principles upon which our notion of rights are based is the key to preserving such rights. Let us now engage in an examination of our Declaration of Independence to get a better understanding of these principles.
The Declaration of Independence starts out with the following paragraph:
"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."
The founders were getting ready to break with the mother country of England because they believed that "The Law's of Nature and Nature's God" entitled them to a separate and equal station. What did they mean by this and how do such laws entitle them to such a status?
The phrase: the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God has often been regarded as a conscious attempt to describe God in deistic terms. As has been pointed out by Gary Amos & Richard Gardiner in their book "Never Before in History," this terminology had been part of the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. From there it was passed to Christians more generally in England and became squarely implanted in English Common Law of the thirteenth century.
One of Jefferson's most influential sources was the Puritan Sir Edward Coke. Coke's writings on the Common Law served as the central textbook for legal studies at the College of William and Mary, where Jefferson received his formal training. In 1610, Coke explained the meaning of the phrase "law of nature" in "The Reports of Sir Edward Coke":
"The law of nature which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and is lex aeternal [The Eternal Law], the moral law, called also the law of nature... And by the law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before the law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter, or writer of law in the world. The Apostle, in the second chapter to the Romans saith, Cum enim gentes quae legen non habent naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciant[While the gentiles who do not have the law do naturally the things of the law]... This law of nature, which is indeed the eternal law of the creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was before any written laws, and before any judicial or municipal laws."
Coke, like medieval Catholic thinkers and most Puritans of his day, grounded the law of nature in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Creation. Jefferson also drew heavily on Sir William Blackstone, who followed directly in Coke's footsteps in explaining the law of nature.
In short, it is the dignity of the human individual in whose heart God has written his Law that entitled them to a separate and equal station.
Why were the "opinions of mankind" so important to them?
From the arrival of the very first settlers, Americans were seeking to embark on an experiment in liberty aimed at inspiring the world to follow their example. In a 1630 sermon by John Winthrop entitled "City upon a Hill," he reminded his Congregation that:
"...for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants..."
Later, during the period in which our Constitution was in preparation, John Adams saw this as being at stake:
"The people of America have now the best opportunity and greatest trust in their hands that Providence has ever committed to so small a number."
In Federalist Paper number 1, Alexander Hamilton had this to say:
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
In short, from the early colonial period right up to the creation of their own government, they saw themselves as an instrument of "Providence" tasked with the mission to be a light of liberty to the world.
What was the impact in the world at large of them sharing the reasons for their decision to separate?
Following the American Revolution its example and the principles at its foundation expressed in the Declaration of Independence inspired a renewed interest in the principles of liberty in Europe during the 19th Century. A European thinker who embarked on a political pilgrimage to America to view first hand this experiment in ordered liberty was the French historian Alexis De Tocqueville, who wrote in his now famous work Democracy in America: "The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit on a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth immediately around it, also tinges the distant horizon with its glow..." Of course that distant horizon was Europe, where those who found themselves yearning to follow that beacon on a hill started a global abolitionist movement which succeeded in ridding much of the world of slavery and inspiring movements for national independence among people who were living under oppression. From Europe these ideas spread out even to the non-western world.
It wasn't until 1865 that slavery was abolished in the United States, making those states truly united at last. It was in the same year that France chose to acknowledge America's role in inspiring that movement toward global liberty with the gift of the Statue of Liberty.
In the 19th Century, the western notions of individual liberty, although deemed heretical by the traditionalists, were embraced by the young western educated elites in the Muslim world. This influence resulted in an end to slavery in much of that part of the world and a movement for national liberation among oppressed religious and national minorities. The process of influence culminated on March 3, 1924, when the first President of the Turkish Republic, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of his reforms, constitutionally abolished the institution of the Caliphate (A single leader who was a political and religious leader over the whole Muslim world with the responsibility to implement Islamic law). Its powers within Turkey were transferred to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (parliament) of the newly formed Turkish Republic. That was the high point of the influence of such western notions as individual liberty and self government in the Muslim world.
In declaring these causes they started out by affirming that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
What did they mean by self-evident? Did they mean obvious, if so why were these notions not widely believed?
The phrase "self evident" as way of describing the truths they held has long been a source of confusion. Amos and Gardiner clear up this confusion by pointing out that Jefferson's first draft read as follows:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable:"
In the final draft of the Declaration, the terms "sacred and undeniable" were substituted for the term "self evident." The question is why was this substitution made? John Locke has pointed out in his "Essay on Human Understanding" that the truth of a proposition was self-evident if its truth was immediately apparent upon reflection. Is this a case of denying that these truths are sacred and insisting on a secular origin? Again, a closer look at the issue reveals that such is not the case. Christian Theology recognizes at least two types of sacred truths. 1)Those that God made known only to a chosen select few by special revelation and 2)Those that God made universally apparent upon reflection by imparting them in the human heart. Self Evident truths are of the latter variety. In other words, the truths that our founders were taking a stand on were not the exclusive property of any particular religion, but were universally the common property of all humankind simply by virtue bearing the image of their Creator.
Why was it important that they deemed their cause to be based on self-evident truths, would it not have been just as meaningful to assert that this is their opinion and that they had a right to their own opinion?
Besides the Biblical linking of truth with freedom ("...you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."), the founding generation was also steeped in the ethical philosophy of Socrates. In fact, Ben Franklin summed up his own ethical philosophy with a recommendation to imitate Jesus and Socrates. At the heart of Socratic thought was an attempt to refute the moral relativism of a group known as the "Sophsts." They were traveling intellectuals who had studied the thought of various City States in the Greek world at the time. Many had come to the conclusion that morality was relative and that there was no absolute standard of justice. In book one of Plato's Republic a Sophist named Thrasymachus argued over the nature of justice with Socrates. Based on the theory that there is no standard of justice beyond human convention, he asserted that: "Justice is the Advantage of the Stronger." In other words, "might makes right."
Needless to say, our founders did not view such a perspective as providing a solid foundation for the ideals of freedom and justice that they saw themselves as called to champion. On the contrary, they sought to place their pursuit of freedom and justice on the foundation of "self-evident truths."
The first of the truths to be asserted was that:
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Why did they believe it important to assert that they were "edowed by their creator" with such rights?
Rather than justice being seen as the advantage of the stronger, Socrates claimed that it was "rendering what was due." He saw humans as having a fundamental nature who, by virtue of that nature were due justice. This begs another question regarding the nature of man and the nature of justice due to him. Are we mere phenomenon of nature or something more than that? This is where our founders turned to their Judeo-Christian heritage and insisted that man was a special being created in God's image. If we were a mere phenomenon of nature, the "survival of the fittest" is the only logical principle governing human conduct. On the other hand, if we were created in the image of a being who freely created the universe, then it is imperative that we be treated with justice and our freedom be seen as sacred.
Even Thomas Jefferson, who was certainly not an Orthodox Christian, saw the importance of recognizing a Creator as the source of human liberty. In his Notes on Virginia of 1782, Jefferson writes:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"
Contrary to the notion that belief in God is simply a matter of unreasoned belief, the founders agreed with John Locke that the existence of God was evident from reason and experience. According to Locke:
"Man knows by an intuitive certainty that bare nothing can no more produce any real being than it can be equal to two right angles....If, therefore, we know there is some real being, and that nonentity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning, and what had a beginning must be produced by something else...." (Essay, IV, x, 3.) "Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being."
They mention men, but what about women?
When the Declaration refers to all MEN being created equal, the reference being used is the Genesis Biblical account of Creation:
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
In this context it becomes obvious that the word "Man" is used to refer to the human species, and not just the male.
What did they mean that these rights are "unalienable"?
The word roughly means non transferable. Since the rights claimed are endowed to the human person by their Creator, and not a privilege granted by government, they can not be taken away by government when they become inconvenient to would be rulers.
The following are the "unalienable" rights listed:
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Why were such rights listed in the order that they are?
The order in which they are listed reflect a view on how the public good is obtained in human society. Life, of course, is first because nothing else is possible without the precious gift of life. Liberty is next as it is fundamental to the striving of humans in society. As a being who bears the image of our creator, liberty is such an integral part of our nature that any attempt to realize the public good without upholding individual liberty is doomed to fail.
There have been utopian schemes going all the way back to Plato's Republic which saw society as one collective entity. The pubic good was achieved by rulers subordinating the "selfish" interests of individuals to the greater good of the larger society. The founders were well aware of these schemes and the historical fact that they only end in misery and tyranny as they violate the fundamental principles of human nature. The notion that human nature required the free association of individuals pursuing happiness to realize the public good was know as "Spontaneous Order."
If life is so important, why were they embarking upon a course that looked like suicide? (England was the mightiest empire of the day and they were a small colony)
The crucial issue here was liberty. The founders were well aware that life's purpose could not be realized without liberty. Perhaps none have put it so eloquently as Patrick Henry in his famous March 23 1775 speech entitled "Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death." Many were understandably hesitant to enter into war with England, which was just the course he was advocating. He ends the speech with this:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Why do they list the "pursuit" of happiness as a right and not happiness itself?
Further clarification is in order here. Today our view of happiness tends to be hedonistic. We want to feel good immediately and tend not to think too far ahead. So we see a night out or a pleasant activity as a route to happiness. This was not the view that the founders had in mind.
The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on happiness. Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which is roughly translated into happiness.
Eudaimonia is not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by living in a way that reaches your full potential you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you that you can be. This meant striving for "arete," which loosely translated means excellence or virtue. Achieving this required intense striving, or what the Greeks referred to as "agon" and was not something that could be simply provided to someone.
For early Americans, who were inheritors of the Judeo-Christian tradition, achieving excellence meant realizing our potential as human beings created in the image of God, which can only be fulfilled in a loving relation with him. The view of happiness found in relationship to God was prominent in the Biblical Psalms of David, in the teaching of Christ and the writings of Paul. This notion was explored by Augustine and picked up among American Puritans by Jonathan Edwards.
Of course, the individual pursuit of excellence necessarily became a community matter through the family unit and voluntary associations. Puritan Philosopher/Theologian Jonathan Edwards was well known for his assertion that "One Alone can not be Excellent." Indeed, the notion of "spontaneous order" which many associate strictly with economics, asserted that individuals left free to pursue happiness would naturally realize the public good. Although Adam Smith is now better known for his work on economics entitled "The Wealth of Nations," he was actually a moral philosopher. His main work at the time was entitled "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," in which he suggested that humans had a natural moral intuition, or sentiment, which led them to find fulfillment in showing benevolence toward others. This again was a result of humans being created in God's image. Of course the reality of sin acted as a corrupting influence so that moral and religious instruction were seen as needed to bring out these sentiments. Because the notion of morality presupposed that behavior was freely chosen, voluntary persuasion, rather than coercion, was what was needed. Some groups like the Quakers, believed that this, coupled with the "inner light," was all that was needed. They saw no need for the coercive power of the State and ran the colony of Pennsylvania for a time with virtually no government at all. On the whole though, most early Americans believed that government was at least needed to secure their rights from those unable to keep their illicit passions in check.
This is how they intended to "secure" these rights:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
Why did our founders limit the role of government to securing our rights, and not include providing our wants and needs as well?
In order to answer this question, it is important to understand how the founders viewed the essential nature of government. As George Washington put it:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
According to this view, the role of government is to be strictly limited as its essential nature is characterized by force and force was not seen as a legitimate way for free people to interact with one another. The expansion of the role of government was seen as dangerous and a serious threat to our precious freedom. If earlier Americans did not consider it the role of government to provide for our needs and wants, how did they go about providing such things? As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his classic "Democracy in America":
"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types — religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries to antipodes. Hospitals, prisons, and schools take shape that way. Finally, if they want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form an association. In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government or in England some territorial magnate, in the United States you are sure to find an association."
Not only is an expanded role for government a threat to our liberty, but it is detrimental to the health of "Civil Society," which is characterized by the various voluntary associations that Americans tend to form. Turning to government to address the needs and concerns which are more properly the role of Civil Society, crowds out and undermines the voluntary institutions that make up a free society. Is it any wonder that as the role of government expands, and we are pit one against another in competition for favors from the government, the use of "reason" and "eloquence" is replaced by "force"? The end result is a society that is much less "civil."
This is where the founders considered the powers of government to come from:
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
As the role of government expands and the functions of government are taken over by unelected bureaucracies, how is it possible to maintain the "consent of the governed"?
Our founders viewed the powers of government to be "just," not only when it was limited to the purpose for which it was conceived, but when it was derived from the consent of the governed. With the exception of the township level where consent was expressed directly in New England style "Town Meetings," consent in our form of government is expressed by the election of "representatives."
The problem arises when the functions and power of government is transferred from elected officials to unelected bureaucrats. The more the role of government expands the faster the functions of government are transferred to a wide variety of government bureaucracies. Since election is the mechanism by which a people confer their consent on a government, unelected government bureaucrats exercise political power without the consent of the governed. Instead of deriving its powers by the consent of the governed, we increasingly have a situation by which government power is exercised by bureaucratic decree. This process raises the question of whether the power of such a government can be considered just. When the citizens of a government have a legitimate concern over whether their government can be considered just, the confidence that people have in their government diminishes and suspicion arises.
This is what our founders thought needed to be done if government no longer functioned as it was intended:
"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."
How would it be possible for a government set up on such principles to become "destructive of these ends"?
Alexis de Tocqueville warned that the passions for equality that Americans had could end up undermining their liberty:
"Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
It is not that something is wrong with equality, it is just that it can be misunderstood in what sense people are equal and what role the government has in preserving our equality. Again, de Tocqueville notes:
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
If the passion for equality leads to an attempt to seek an artificial, government imposed equality where natural human differences are to be eliminated, the result is a utopian tyranny. This starts when we forget what the purpose of government is and seek to expand its role to serve as an instrument of someone's utopian vision. As pointed out above, Washington noted that government is not reason or eloquence, but force. As such, it is a blunt instrument with a very limited capability to address social issues beyond protecting our rights from being violated. When Washington warned that government should not be "left to irresponsible action", he was partly referring to confining the role of government to the narrow area for which is suited.
As the power of government expands and is concentrated in fewer hands, it becomes corrupt and ceases to be based on the consent of the governed. At this point government becomes the master of the people rather than their servant.
How are the people even going to be aware that government is becoming "destructive of these ends" if they do not preserve and understanding of the purpose and limits of government?
This is a question that we should always keep in mind. Jefferson once said that:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Jefferson's quote is particularly relevant to ignorance in regards to the purpose and limits of government. We have been discussing the process by which the role of government expands ultimately leading to tyranny. That this is a path to tyranny is not obvious until the power of government is such that it is extremely difficult to do anything about it. Such a process starts out as a benevolent attempt to provide for our wants and needs, or to ensure greater equality. The motive is most often sincere without any desire to cause harm or misery. It is unlikely that the general population will recognize where such a course is likely to lead unless it remains educated on the limits and purpose of government and constantly demands that government remain confined within such limits.
If the people let too much power to be transferred from themself to the government, how can they ever expect to alter it?
It is important that the people jealously resist all attempts by government to expand its role. Taken one by one many proposals to expand the role of government in the attempt to address some real or perceived social ills are pretty much harmless. The problem is that, taken all together they represent a significant transfer of power from the people to their government, and from local and state governments to state and national governments. As mentioned above, once government has gained enough power so that it becomes the master rather than the servant, it is very difficult to change it. Again, it is important that government power be kept in check from the beginning.
This is what the founders had to say about patience and responsibility when it came to altering government:
"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. 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."
Why must "prudence" or patience be exercised when considering changes made to governments "long established"?
Like John Locke, whose writings had an influence on them, our founders held reason and experience in high regard. They were hesitant to hastily make changes in institutions that reflected the "Wisdom of the Ages." They were well aware of utopian schemes going all the way back to Plato's Republic which were mere theoretical constructs and had no connection to actual past experiences. Our founders were certainly men of great vision, but they were also eminently practical men as well. They were wary of utopian theoretical schemes that were not the result of a careful study of how such ideas actually worked in history. They viewed such schemes as more likely to result in tyranny.
When it is clear that such changes are needed, why is making such changes a "duty" as well as a "right"?
As already noted, our founders saw the freedom, which they championed, as an endowment from God. As such they saw it as a duty to be good stewards over this precious gift. In addition, they saw the blessings of liberty to be entrusted to them by providence so that they may be a light unto the nations. The blessings were not merely for them to enjoy, but to share with all of mankind. This included securing the blessings of liberty to future generations as well. Here is how Patrick Henry saw the matter:
"The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province or a kingdom, but of a continent — of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now."
We simply cannot fulfill such a calling, or responsibility, without keeping the blessings of liberty secure.
As has been pointed out, the contest between freedom and tyranny is not restricted to one age or generation, but is a timeless battle. The sacrifices made by our founders are linked in this noble cause to those made by our men and women in the armed forces who have fought to preserve these blessings. It is our duty to honor those brave souls who have laid their life on the line for liberty, both past and present, as well as the preserve the heritage they passed on to us for future generations. The best way to honor them is to renew our dedication to the cause for which they laid down their lives and ensure that victory is the end result. In doing so we must always keep in mind Thomas Jefferson's warning that: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." While some have fought with arms to protect our freedom from foreign aggressors, such aggression is not the only threat to our vision of liberty. Another more subtle threat comes from what has been called the "War of Ideas." This threat is an ideological one that undermines the principles, which are the basis of ideals being discussed here. In other words, "Ideas Have Consequences." There is an old saying that "the best defense is a good offense" and the best way to fight the ideological assault on our vision of liberty is to constantly champion that vision in the arena of public ideas. This arena includes our schools and institutions of higher learning, religious associations, the media, etc.
© Robert Maynard
June 17, 2010
The 20th Century has given rise to serious challenges to the American notion of human rights rooted in a vision of liberty and virtue. Cato Institute senior fellow Brink Lindsey points out in a September 28 2001 article entitled "The Last Totalitarians," that the various challenges we have faced are merely different versions of a totalitarian reaction to the American inspired ideology of freedom, which was sweeping the globe during the 19th Century. Osama Bin Laden and the radical Jihadist ideology he represents is just the latest reaction to our notion liberty under law.
The totalitarian ideologies that we have faced are merely extreme manifestations of a contrasting vision rooted in Utopian Collectivism. This vision sees society as one collective whole with its members merely parts of the whole. A utopian society is believed to be possible if we just had the right people in charge to "Socially Engineer" the public good. This is to be accomplished via government action from the top down. Unfortunately, a milder version of this notion has infected the thinking of much the "opinion shaping" cultural sectors and political leadership of Western society, the U.S. included.
It has gotten to the point that those Americans who oppose utopian schemes in the name of preserving our vision of liberty under law have come to be seen by that leadership as selfish reactionaries at best, or dangerous extremists at worst. They seem to forget that it is those who buy into the notion of Utopian Collectivism who are the real reactionaries.
Those who seek to preserve our constitutional rights need to keep this in mind and constantly remind the world that they are engaged in a pro-active attempt to revive that vision of liberty. Of course the aforementioned rights are enumerated in our Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was, however, a codification into law of certain principles held by our founders and their colonial predecessors. These principles were spelled out in the "Declaration of Independence." Understanding these principles upon which our notion of rights are based is the key to preserving such rights. Let us now engage in an examination of our Declaration of Independence to get a better understanding of these principles.
The Declaration of Independence starts out with the following paragraph:
"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."
The founders were getting ready to break with the mother country of England because they believed that "The Law's of Nature and Nature's God" entitled them to a separate and equal station. What did they mean by this and how do such laws entitle them to such a status?
The phrase: the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God has often been regarded as a conscious attempt to describe God in deistic terms. As has been pointed out by Gary Amos & Richard Gardiner in their book "Never Before in History," this terminology had been part of the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. From there it was passed to Christians more generally in England and became squarely implanted in English Common Law of the thirteenth century.
One of Jefferson's most influential sources was the Puritan Sir Edward Coke. Coke's writings on the Common Law served as the central textbook for legal studies at the College of William and Mary, where Jefferson received his formal training. In 1610, Coke explained the meaning of the phrase "law of nature" in "The Reports of Sir Edward Coke":
"The law of nature which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and is lex aeternal [The Eternal Law], the moral law, called also the law of nature... And by the law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before the law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter, or writer of law in the world. The Apostle, in the second chapter to the Romans saith, Cum enim gentes quae legen non habent naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciant[While the gentiles who do not have the law do naturally the things of the law]... This law of nature, which is indeed the eternal law of the creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was before any written laws, and before any judicial or municipal laws."
Coke, like medieval Catholic thinkers and most Puritans of his day, grounded the law of nature in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Creation. Jefferson also drew heavily on Sir William Blackstone, who followed directly in Coke's footsteps in explaining the law of nature.
In short, it is the dignity of the human individual in whose heart God has written his Law that entitled them to a separate and equal station.
Why were the "opinions of mankind" so important to them?
From the arrival of the very first settlers, Americans were seeking to embark on an experiment in liberty aimed at inspiring the world to follow their example. In a 1630 sermon by John Winthrop entitled "City upon a Hill," he reminded his Congregation that:
"...for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants..."
Later, during the period in which our Constitution was in preparation, John Adams saw this as being at stake:
"The people of America have now the best opportunity and greatest trust in their hands that Providence has ever committed to so small a number."
In Federalist Paper number 1, Alexander Hamilton had this to say:
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
In short, from the early colonial period right up to the creation of their own government, they saw themselves as an instrument of "Providence" tasked with the mission to be a light of liberty to the world.
What was the impact in the world at large of them sharing the reasons for their decision to separate?
Following the American Revolution its example and the principles at its foundation expressed in the Declaration of Independence inspired a renewed interest in the principles of liberty in Europe during the 19th Century. A European thinker who embarked on a political pilgrimage to America to view first hand this experiment in ordered liberty was the French historian Alexis De Tocqueville, who wrote in his now famous work Democracy in America: "The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit on a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth immediately around it, also tinges the distant horizon with its glow..." Of course that distant horizon was Europe, where those who found themselves yearning to follow that beacon on a hill started a global abolitionist movement which succeeded in ridding much of the world of slavery and inspiring movements for national independence among people who were living under oppression. From Europe these ideas spread out even to the non-western world.
It wasn't until 1865 that slavery was abolished in the United States, making those states truly united at last. It was in the same year that France chose to acknowledge America's role in inspiring that movement toward global liberty with the gift of the Statue of Liberty.
In the 19th Century, the western notions of individual liberty, although deemed heretical by the traditionalists, were embraced by the young western educated elites in the Muslim world. This influence resulted in an end to slavery in much of that part of the world and a movement for national liberation among oppressed religious and national minorities. The process of influence culminated on March 3, 1924, when the first President of the Turkish Republic, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of his reforms, constitutionally abolished the institution of the Caliphate (A single leader who was a political and religious leader over the whole Muslim world with the responsibility to implement Islamic law). Its powers within Turkey were transferred to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (parliament) of the newly formed Turkish Republic. That was the high point of the influence of such western notions as individual liberty and self government in the Muslim world.
In declaring these causes they started out by affirming that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
What did they mean by self-evident? Did they mean obvious, if so why were these notions not widely believed?
The phrase "self evident" as way of describing the truths they held has long been a source of confusion. Amos and Gardiner clear up this confusion by pointing out that Jefferson's first draft read as follows:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable:"
In the final draft of the Declaration, the terms "sacred and undeniable" were substituted for the term "self evident." The question is why was this substitution made? John Locke has pointed out in his "Essay on Human Understanding" that the truth of a proposition was self-evident if its truth was immediately apparent upon reflection. Is this a case of denying that these truths are sacred and insisting on a secular origin? Again, a closer look at the issue reveals that such is not the case. Christian Theology recognizes at least two types of sacred truths. 1)Those that God made known only to a chosen select few by special revelation and 2)Those that God made universally apparent upon reflection by imparting them in the human heart. Self Evident truths are of the latter variety. In other words, the truths that our founders were taking a stand on were not the exclusive property of any particular religion, but were universally the common property of all humankind simply by virtue bearing the image of their Creator.
Why was it important that they deemed their cause to be based on self-evident truths, would it not have been just as meaningful to assert that this is their opinion and that they had a right to their own opinion?
Besides the Biblical linking of truth with freedom ("...you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."), the founding generation was also steeped in the ethical philosophy of Socrates. In fact, Ben Franklin summed up his own ethical philosophy with a recommendation to imitate Jesus and Socrates. At the heart of Socratic thought was an attempt to refute the moral relativism of a group known as the "Sophsts." They were traveling intellectuals who had studied the thought of various City States in the Greek world at the time. Many had come to the conclusion that morality was relative and that there was no absolute standard of justice. In book one of Plato's Republic a Sophist named Thrasymachus argued over the nature of justice with Socrates. Based on the theory that there is no standard of justice beyond human convention, he asserted that: "Justice is the Advantage of the Stronger." In other words, "might makes right."
Needless to say, our founders did not view such a perspective as providing a solid foundation for the ideals of freedom and justice that they saw themselves as called to champion. On the contrary, they sought to place their pursuit of freedom and justice on the foundation of "self-evident truths."
The first of the truths to be asserted was that:
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Why did they believe it important to assert that they were "edowed by their creator" with such rights?
Rather than justice being seen as the advantage of the stronger, Socrates claimed that it was "rendering what was due." He saw humans as having a fundamental nature who, by virtue of that nature were due justice. This begs another question regarding the nature of man and the nature of justice due to him. Are we mere phenomenon of nature or something more than that? This is where our founders turned to their Judeo-Christian heritage and insisted that man was a special being created in God's image. If we were a mere phenomenon of nature, the "survival of the fittest" is the only logical principle governing human conduct. On the other hand, if we were created in the image of a being who freely created the universe, then it is imperative that we be treated with justice and our freedom be seen as sacred.
Even Thomas Jefferson, who was certainly not an Orthodox Christian, saw the importance of recognizing a Creator as the source of human liberty. In his Notes on Virginia of 1782, Jefferson writes:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"
Contrary to the notion that belief in God is simply a matter of unreasoned belief, the founders agreed with John Locke that the existence of God was evident from reason and experience. According to Locke:
"Man knows by an intuitive certainty that bare nothing can no more produce any real being than it can be equal to two right angles....If, therefore, we know there is some real being, and that nonentity cannot produce any real being, it is an evident demonstration that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning, and what had a beginning must be produced by something else...." (Essay, IV, x, 3.) "Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being."
They mention men, but what about women?
When the Declaration refers to all MEN being created equal, the reference being used is the Genesis Biblical account of Creation:
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
In this context it becomes obvious that the word "Man" is used to refer to the human species, and not just the male.
What did they mean that these rights are "unalienable"?
The word roughly means non transferable. Since the rights claimed are endowed to the human person by their Creator, and not a privilege granted by government, they can not be taken away by government when they become inconvenient to would be rulers.
The following are the "unalienable" rights listed:
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Why were such rights listed in the order that they are?
The order in which they are listed reflect a view on how the public good is obtained in human society. Life, of course, is first because nothing else is possible without the precious gift of life. Liberty is next as it is fundamental to the striving of humans in society. As a being who bears the image of our creator, liberty is such an integral part of our nature that any attempt to realize the public good without upholding individual liberty is doomed to fail.
There have been utopian schemes going all the way back to Plato's Republic which saw society as one collective entity. The pubic good was achieved by rulers subordinating the "selfish" interests of individuals to the greater good of the larger society. The founders were well aware of these schemes and the historical fact that they only end in misery and tyranny as they violate the fundamental principles of human nature. The notion that human nature required the free association of individuals pursuing happiness to realize the public good was know as "Spontaneous Order."
If life is so important, why were they embarking upon a course that looked like suicide? (England was the mightiest empire of the day and they were a small colony)
The crucial issue here was liberty. The founders were well aware that life's purpose could not be realized without liberty. Perhaps none have put it so eloquently as Patrick Henry in his famous March 23 1775 speech entitled "Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death." Many were understandably hesitant to enter into war with England, which was just the course he was advocating. He ends the speech with this:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Why do they list the "pursuit" of happiness as a right and not happiness itself?
Further clarification is in order here. Today our view of happiness tends to be hedonistic. We want to feel good immediately and tend not to think too far ahead. So we see a night out or a pleasant activity as a route to happiness. This was not the view that the founders had in mind.
The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on happiness. Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which is roughly translated into happiness.
Eudaimonia is not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by living in a way that reaches your full potential you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you that you can be. This meant striving for "arete," which loosely translated means excellence or virtue. Achieving this required intense striving, or what the Greeks referred to as "agon" and was not something that could be simply provided to someone.
For early Americans, who were inheritors of the Judeo-Christian tradition, achieving excellence meant realizing our potential as human beings created in the image of God, which can only be fulfilled in a loving relation with him. The view of happiness found in relationship to God was prominent in the Biblical Psalms of David, in the teaching of Christ and the writings of Paul. This notion was explored by Augustine and picked up among American Puritans by Jonathan Edwards.
Of course, the individual pursuit of excellence necessarily became a community matter through the family unit and voluntary associations. Puritan Philosopher/Theologian Jonathan Edwards was well known for his assertion that "One Alone can not be Excellent." Indeed, the notion of "spontaneous order" which many associate strictly with economics, asserted that individuals left free to pursue happiness would naturally realize the public good. Although Adam Smith is now better known for his work on economics entitled "The Wealth of Nations," he was actually a moral philosopher. His main work at the time was entitled "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," in which he suggested that humans had a natural moral intuition, or sentiment, which led them to find fulfillment in showing benevolence toward others. This again was a result of humans being created in God's image. Of course the reality of sin acted as a corrupting influence so that moral and religious instruction were seen as needed to bring out these sentiments. Because the notion of morality presupposed that behavior was freely chosen, voluntary persuasion, rather than coercion, was what was needed. Some groups like the Quakers, believed that this, coupled with the "inner light," was all that was needed. They saw no need for the coercive power of the State and ran the colony of Pennsylvania for a time with virtually no government at all. On the whole though, most early Americans believed that government was at least needed to secure their rights from those unable to keep their illicit passions in check.
This is how they intended to "secure" these rights:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
Why did our founders limit the role of government to securing our rights, and not include providing our wants and needs as well?
In order to answer this question, it is important to understand how the founders viewed the essential nature of government. As George Washington put it:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
According to this view, the role of government is to be strictly limited as its essential nature is characterized by force and force was not seen as a legitimate way for free people to interact with one another. The expansion of the role of government was seen as dangerous and a serious threat to our precious freedom. If earlier Americans did not consider it the role of government to provide for our needs and wants, how did they go about providing such things? As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his classic "Democracy in America":
"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types — religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. Americans combine to give fetes, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries to antipodes. Hospitals, prisons, and schools take shape that way. Finally, if they want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form an association. In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government or in England some territorial magnate, in the United States you are sure to find an association."
Not only is an expanded role for government a threat to our liberty, but it is detrimental to the health of "Civil Society," which is characterized by the various voluntary associations that Americans tend to form. Turning to government to address the needs and concerns which are more properly the role of Civil Society, crowds out and undermines the voluntary institutions that make up a free society. Is it any wonder that as the role of government expands, and we are pit one against another in competition for favors from the government, the use of "reason" and "eloquence" is replaced by "force"? The end result is a society that is much less "civil."
This is where the founders considered the powers of government to come from:
"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
As the role of government expands and the functions of government are taken over by unelected bureaucracies, how is it possible to maintain the "consent of the governed"?
Our founders viewed the powers of government to be "just," not only when it was limited to the purpose for which it was conceived, but when it was derived from the consent of the governed. With the exception of the township level where consent was expressed directly in New England style "Town Meetings," consent in our form of government is expressed by the election of "representatives."
The problem arises when the functions and power of government is transferred from elected officials to unelected bureaucrats. The more the role of government expands the faster the functions of government are transferred to a wide variety of government bureaucracies. Since election is the mechanism by which a people confer their consent on a government, unelected government bureaucrats exercise political power without the consent of the governed. Instead of deriving its powers by the consent of the governed, we increasingly have a situation by which government power is exercised by bureaucratic decree. This process raises the question of whether the power of such a government can be considered just. When the citizens of a government have a legitimate concern over whether their government can be considered just, the confidence that people have in their government diminishes and suspicion arises.
This is what our founders thought needed to be done if government no longer functioned as it was intended:
"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."
How would it be possible for a government set up on such principles to become "destructive of these ends"?
Alexis de Tocqueville warned that the passions for equality that Americans had could end up undermining their liberty:
"Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."
It is not that something is wrong with equality, it is just that it can be misunderstood in what sense people are equal and what role the government has in preserving our equality. Again, de Tocqueville notes:
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
If the passion for equality leads to an attempt to seek an artificial, government imposed equality where natural human differences are to be eliminated, the result is a utopian tyranny. This starts when we forget what the purpose of government is and seek to expand its role to serve as an instrument of someone's utopian vision. As pointed out above, Washington noted that government is not reason or eloquence, but force. As such, it is a blunt instrument with a very limited capability to address social issues beyond protecting our rights from being violated. When Washington warned that government should not be "left to irresponsible action", he was partly referring to confining the role of government to the narrow area for which is suited.
As the power of government expands and is concentrated in fewer hands, it becomes corrupt and ceases to be based on the consent of the governed. At this point government becomes the master of the people rather than their servant.
How are the people even going to be aware that government is becoming "destructive of these ends" if they do not preserve and understanding of the purpose and limits of government?
This is a question that we should always keep in mind. Jefferson once said that:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Jefferson's quote is particularly relevant to ignorance in regards to the purpose and limits of government. We have been discussing the process by which the role of government expands ultimately leading to tyranny. That this is a path to tyranny is not obvious until the power of government is such that it is extremely difficult to do anything about it. Such a process starts out as a benevolent attempt to provide for our wants and needs, or to ensure greater equality. The motive is most often sincere without any desire to cause harm or misery. It is unlikely that the general population will recognize where such a course is likely to lead unless it remains educated on the limits and purpose of government and constantly demands that government remain confined within such limits.
If the people let too much power to be transferred from themself to the government, how can they ever expect to alter it?
It is important that the people jealously resist all attempts by government to expand its role. Taken one by one many proposals to expand the role of government in the attempt to address some real or perceived social ills are pretty much harmless. The problem is that, taken all together they represent a significant transfer of power from the people to their government, and from local and state governments to state and national governments. As mentioned above, once government has gained enough power so that it becomes the master rather than the servant, it is very difficult to change it. Again, it is important that government power be kept in check from the beginning.
This is what the founders had to say about patience and responsibility when it came to altering government:
"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. 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."
Why must "prudence" or patience be exercised when considering changes made to governments "long established"?
Like John Locke, whose writings had an influence on them, our founders held reason and experience in high regard. They were hesitant to hastily make changes in institutions that reflected the "Wisdom of the Ages." They were well aware of utopian schemes going all the way back to Plato's Republic which were mere theoretical constructs and had no connection to actual past experiences. Our founders were certainly men of great vision, but they were also eminently practical men as well. They were wary of utopian theoretical schemes that were not the result of a careful study of how such ideas actually worked in history. They viewed such schemes as more likely to result in tyranny.
When it is clear that such changes are needed, why is making such changes a "duty" as well as a "right"?
As already noted, our founders saw the freedom, which they championed, as an endowment from God. As such they saw it as a duty to be good stewards over this precious gift. In addition, they saw the blessings of liberty to be entrusted to them by providence so that they may be a light unto the nations. The blessings were not merely for them to enjoy, but to share with all of mankind. This included securing the blessings of liberty to future generations as well. Here is how Patrick Henry saw the matter:
"The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province or a kingdom, but of a continent — of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now."
We simply cannot fulfill such a calling, or responsibility, without keeping the blessings of liberty secure.
As has been pointed out, the contest between freedom and tyranny is not restricted to one age or generation, but is a timeless battle. The sacrifices made by our founders are linked in this noble cause to those made by our men and women in the armed forces who have fought to preserve these blessings. It is our duty to honor those brave souls who have laid their life on the line for liberty, both past and present, as well as the preserve the heritage they passed on to us for future generations. The best way to honor them is to renew our dedication to the cause for which they laid down their lives and ensure that victory is the end result. In doing so we must always keep in mind Thomas Jefferson's warning that: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." While some have fought with arms to protect our freedom from foreign aggressors, such aggression is not the only threat to our vision of liberty. Another more subtle threat comes from what has been called the "War of Ideas." This threat is an ideological one that undermines the principles, which are the basis of ideals being discussed here. In other words, "Ideas Have Consequences." There is an old saying that "the best defense is a good offense" and the best way to fight the ideological assault on our vision of liberty is to constantly champion that vision in the arena of public ideas. This arena includes our schools and institutions of higher learning, religious associations, the media, etc.
© Robert Maynard
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
