Of all the documents that exist in the world, there are few that are as monumental as the United States’ Declaration of Independence. Signed on July 4th, 1776, the Declaration of Independence has myriad implications and aspects that deserve an academic investigation. While there are indeed many issues pertaining to the Declaration of Independence to address and explore, there are particular aspects that will be noted in this essay, including issues regarding the effect of the Enlightenment philosophy on the Declaration of Independence, interpretations of certain Declaration of Independent facets, and exactly how it is that the Declaration of Independence reflects the ideas and thinking of its framers and eighteenth-century America.
The Enlightenment, born in Europe during the seventeenth century and carried over to America in the decades that followed, is a philosophy that advocated advancement of not just science but also that of humanity. The Enlightenment, which began sweeping America via the many educated Europeans who immigrated to this land, books, and travelers, firmly began establishing itself in the minds and hearts of many Americans in the eighteenth century (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil 113). Among the great Enlightenment thinkers whose ideas would prove vitally influential to building the independent nation to be is John Locke, a great English philosopher who wrote the imperative 1690 essay Two Treatise on Government. Two Treatise on Government illustrates a number of principles that would eventually form much of the bedrock upon which the Declaration of Independence and its fundamentals rest. Namely, however, is the idea that, as Locke professes, individuals have certain “natural rights” which include “life, liberty, and property”; furthermore, Locke asserts that people have the right to, through majority decision, choose the policies and forms of the government that rules the said public (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil 113).
Jefferson indeed looked to Locke’s philosophy when drafting the Declaration of Independence, as evidenced by Jefferson’s core belief in democracy and his fundamental inclusion of people having “natural rights.” However, there is one important caveat to bring to light. While Locke asserts that people have “natural rights” to “life, liberty, and property,” the final draft of the Declaration of Independence states that people’s “inalienable” rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil D-1). Why would the wording of this certain right have been changed from the Lockean “property” to the Jeffersonian and American “pursuit of happiness”? This student believes that Jefferson’s having replaced the word “property” with “pursuit of happiness” not only asserts that people have the right to literally seek a life of self-fulfillment, but also it seems as though the omission of “property” may have been an intentional loophole to eventually allow slavery abolitionists to realize their goal of ending slavery. As slaves were indeed considered “property” during the eighteenth century, to suggest that man had a “natural right” to “owning property” could have likely prevented the institution of slavery from ever ceasing, especially under the interpretation of constructionist judges.
There is, however, another issue to be considered in correlation to the phrase “pursuit of happiness,” and that is the effect this stipulation had on fostering a capitalistic nation. It is in this student’s viewpoint that Jefferson included “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence to assert not just that people had the right to seek self-fulfilling lives, but also that people could do this while being restricted only by their own bounds of enterprise and aspiration. Thus, “pursuit of happiness” opened the doors to stimulating a capitalistic economy whereby people could be upwardly mobile, aspire to become members of aristocracy, and even join the ranks of the economic elite. While such economic attainment usually requires the fortitude of individuals to work and strive toward such goals, the fact that people are reminded that they have a “natural right” to go as far as their aspirations desire has indeed stimulated Americans to create a capitalistic economy in which to flourish and prosper, leading the world economically and inspiring millions of people from every corner of the globe to come to this nation and live the so-called “American dream.”
While Locke clearly has a major influence in the Declaration of Independence, it is important to note that Jefferson also appears to have invoked other Enlightenment thinkers whose philosophies are evident in the Declaration of Independence, including David Hume and Francis Hutcheson. Both Hume’s and Hutcheson’s philosophies of “questioning past practices” and “rely[ing] on reason to correct social ills” are evident in the Declaration of Independence in many ways (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil 143). These two aforementioned principles seen in such ways as the Declaration’s scathing summarization of charges against King George III and the British, who held a stranglehold upon the American colonies; and the Declaration’s innately evident reflection of people’s reasoning to realize they have the power to throw aside the “social ills” of the British-controlled colonies by pursuing the formation of a revolutionary human society. Another important Enlightenment thinker whose ideas can be found in the Declaration of Independence are those of French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, who “saw despotism, in particular, as a standing danger for any government not already despotic,” (Bok). Indeed, the language of the Declaration of Independence reflects such a notion by proclaiming the people’s “right” and “duty to throw off” any ruling bodies that reign upon its subjects “Absolute Despotism,” (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil D-1).
As can be seen, certain ideals are at the heart of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps one of the most often-quoted idealistic phrases contained in the Declaration of Independence is “all men are created equal.” However, one must consider exactly what this concept meant to Jefferson in the scheme of eighteenth-century America. Perhaps most perplexing, given the fact that he owned slaves, how could Jefferson have suggested that “all men are created equal”? While more recent interpretations of the phrase “all men are created equal” have been extended to cover literally all Americans of any race and either gender, it is in this student’s theory that Jefferson’s reference to “all men” was in fact intending to imply that adult, property-owning white male colonists (who helmed virtually all major aspects of American politics and society in the eighteenth century) are equal to British men. Furthermore, it appears that this assertion is declared largely to philosophically support that the colonists had the right to claim independence from Britain and begin a new nation unfettered from the taxation, laws, methods, and realm of the Crown and Parliament.
The glorious concept of “all men” having been “created equal” illustrates another aspect about Declaration of Independence and the Revolution that spawned the document indeed having a virtuous or moral tone. The Revolution, based on the colonists’ desire to become an independent entity from the British, contained many rally calls that could be considered as “moral.” From the idea that people should not be taxed without representation (as in Parliament), to the realization that the colonists were in no way inferior to their British counterparts, the Revolution embodied virtues that were sought after by the many in this land who yearned to end their subjection to the British and its monarchy. Furthermore, just as the Revolution was largely built upon seeking actualization of these virtues, so too did the movement parlay its core values into the Declaration of Independence. Examining some lines from the Declaration of Independence will illustrate the evidence that the document is designed to convey moral implications.
We hold these Truths to be self evident […] That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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. […] [W]hen long 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. (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil D-1)
Especially in the context of middle-1770s America, when Patriot leaders were having to rally this nation’s people to fight for the cause of independence, one can see how it is that the Declaration of Independence embodies morality. Principally, as Jefferson “link[ed] the doctrines of individual liberty, popular sovereignty, and a republican form of government with independence, [he] established them as defining values of the new nation,” (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil 171). Furthermore, as the Declaration of Independence was “meant to motivate troops, rally the colonies and persuade the world that British rule was no longer tolerable,” one can realize how even today the document compels Americans to fight the good fight, so to speak (Nellis). While such virtuous language once applied to British rule, this student posits that it is such a moral stance that today justifies and inspires, for example, the American fight to end the plague of terrorism that reigns in many nations and threatens to overwhelm ours, too, if left unchecked. It is the Declaration of Independence, which served to advance democracy in America, that today provides an exemplary fundamental to totalitarian nations just how vital to the core of humanity democracy is. Namely, it is the essence of the Declaration of Independence to highlight the just and good “natural” rights that people possess and to remind this nation’s citizens that they are essentially justified in doing as necessary to see that these rights are not obstructed.
Just as there is a moral tone in the Declaration of Independence, there is also a religious tone in the document. Principally, with the inclusion of the terms such as “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” and “Supreme Judge of the world” it is quite apparent that Jefferson and those who endorsed the Declaration of Independence acknowledge the existence of a higher power (Henretta, Brody, Dumenil D-1; D-3). However, the terms “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” and “Supreme Judge of the world” neither necessarily imply the Christian God (which Britain advocated in the eighteenth century), nor do they suggest that the new nation was about to endorse any particular religion and, therefore, require its citizens to adhere to follow its guidelines. After all, unlike the employment of terms like “Jesus Christ, “Lord” or even “Trinity,” as are common references to specifically Christian perspectives, one finds that Jefferson evokes “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Supreme Judge of the world,” which are far more general terms, at least in regards to religion as a whole. Jefferson believed in the concept known as the “separation of church and state”; in fact, it was Jefferson who was among the first to popularly use the term, as contained in his often-referenced 1802 letter he wrote to a Danbury, Connecticut Baptist group (Cummings and Wise 99). This brief insight into Jefferson’s background, along with the consideration of the rather secular tone whenever a higher power is evoked in the document, suggests that much of his language in the Declaration of Independence was born from a desire to keep the endorsement of a specific religion away from the role of government.
As evidenced in this review, the Declaration of Independence embodies the quintessential concepts of late eighteenth-century America. From the Patriot movement that ultimately was successful in declaring independence from despotic Great Britain; to the Enlightenment philosophy, which was sweeping America’s intellect; to the inclusive recognition of the already-flourishing religious diversity this nation realized in the eighteenth-century, the Declaration of Independence sought to propel forth a model of democracy that provides the very bedrock for the nation in which we live today. From eighteenth-century philosophies and motives to continued relevance in the twenty-first century and beyond, the Declaration of Independence is indeed a timeless document.
Works Cited
Bok, Hilary. “Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 18 July 2003. 16 February 2007.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
Cummings, Jr., and David Wise. Democracy Under Pressure: An Introduction to the American Political System 9th ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2003.
Henretta, James A.; David Brody; and Lynn Dumenil. America: A Concise History. 3rd Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006.
Nellis, Kathy, “U.S. Declaration of Independence Travels to the People.” CNN Student News. 3 July 2002. 18 February 2007. http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2002/fyi/news/07/03/declaration/
