{"id":2779,"date":"2021-04-21T17:35:09","date_gmt":"2021-04-21T17:35:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/?p=2779"},"modified":"2021-04-23T14:02:23","modified_gmt":"2021-04-23T14:02:23","slug":"compact-theory-in-action-the-declaration-of-independence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/?p=2779","title":{"rendered":"Compact Theory in Action: The Declaration of Independence"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>This week, we reach an important milestone in our look at political philosophy. This blog looks at a seminal document for the United States of America\u2014our Declaration of Independence. The goal is to introduce the political thinking of Thomas Jefferson (and the members of the Continental Congress that enacted the Declaration), revealing how thinkers we have studied up to this point, and the way of thinking that emerged from the Enlightenment political philosophy, impacted the formation of our nation.<\/p>\n

Brief History of American Colonization Prior to 1776<\/b><\/p>\n

 The British began colonizing North America as early as 1606 with the foundation of Jamestown, Virginia by the London Company about 170 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Spanish tried earlier (St. Augustine Florida in 1565) as had the British (Roanoke 1587). By 1776, the British had a large empire in North America extending from the Caribbean Sea to the Artic, an empire that included thirteen colonies in North America stretching from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean to the Canadian Border along the Eastern coast of North America. At the time of the American Revolution, the colonies had a combined population of approximately 2,000,000.<\/p>\n

Before, during, and after the French and Indian War (1754-1753), the circumstances that led to the American Revolution slowly developed. From their formation, the Thirteen Colonies developed a self-identity as Americans, in addition to seeing themselves as part of the British Empire.  The French and Indian War, which was fought in Europe as well as the United States, left Britain the dominant power in North America with a much-expanded land mass to administer and defend.  The French had lost their colonies in North America, resulting in bad feelings that would enable them to support the American revolutionaries. The British, therefore, watched carefully to thwart any attempt by France to regain control of territory in North America, especially in the French speaking areas of Canada.<\/p>\n

The expansion of the British Empire increased the control the British government felt necessary over the colonies, a kind and degree of control that had not previously existed.  In addition, the British were not well-prepared for the responsibilities of administering their new empire, and developing the best strategy for colonial governance took time (and the American Revolution) to evolve. British desire to maintain direct control of the colonies, and especially over economic activity, ultimately resulted in the passage of the Intolerable Acts in1773, which restricted colonial self-government and was the proximate cause of the revolution.  As one author notes, by 1776, the Colonies had become accustomed to a large degree of self-government, and any attempt by the British to take away that self-government was bound to cause problems. [1]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The French, who were vastly outnumbered by the British and Colonial armies, had been supported by the Indians of North America during the French and Indian War (hence the name). In order to placate the tribes and diminish the potential for additional conflict, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued, which restricted colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. The colonists were not happy at these restrictions\u2014and violated the proclamation during the succeeding years.<\/p>\n

Finally, the British incurred a large debt during the French and Indian War, as well as the ongoing expenses of administering a larger empire. As a result, new tax measures were enacted, including the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765. This increased tensions between Great Britain and her North American colonies. Discontentment reached a breaking point with the passage of the Tea Act of 1773, which led to the Boston Tea Party\u2014a direct act of defiance. The British responded by increasing their military presence in North America. Two years later, at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, British soldiers fired on a band of colonists, and the hostilities that resulted in the American revolution began.<\/p>\n

Events Leading to the Declaration of Independence<\/b><\/p>\n

 During the spring of 1776, beginning with North Carolina, the legislatures of the Thirteen Colonies moved towards declaring independence from Great Britain. In May 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. Originally, many people hoped for a form of local rule that would enable the Thirteen colonies to remain British subjects. [2]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> This hope was dashed when King George III issued a proclamation of rebellion in August 1775. In February 1776, Parliament passed the Prohibitory Acts, instituting severe economic sanctions against the colonies. At the same time, the British government took other steps indicating an intent to put down a rebellion by force. A breaking point had been reached.<\/p>\n

On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee authorized to draft a declaration. This committee included John Adams (Massachusetts), Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania), Thomas Jefferson (Virginia), Robert Livingston (New York), and Roger Sherman (Connecticut). Thus, the largest and most powerful states as well as both states from the North and the South were included in the committee. In addition, Adams was probably the best-known lawyer in America at the time and Franklin its most famous citizen. Adams was originally offered the job of draftsman, but did not want to take on the responsibility and suggested Jefferson. He did agree to consult with Jefferson as the first draft was created for discussion and approval by the committee. [3]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> Congress debated and amended the draft over two days beginning in early July. By July 4, 1776, Second Continental Congress had agreed to a Declaration of Independence<\/p>\n

Purpose of the Declaration<\/b><\/p>\n

The Continental Congress was aware that, in the eyes of the British government (to which they were subject), the Declaration of Independence amounted to treason. Indeed, some of the founders were eventually captured and tried for this offense. [4]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> They were also aware that if they were to receive any recognition in the eyes of other nations, including France, the historical enemy of Britain, they would have to provide compelling reasons for their decision to renounce their status as colonies of Great Britain.<\/p>\n

Role of Contract Theory in the Declaration of Independence<\/b><\/p>\n

We have seen how the Contract Theory of Government, especially as framed by Locke, and the notion that a social covenant might be breached by a ruler justifying revolution, developed in both political philosophy and in the thinking of dominant Christian political leaders in the colonies during the late 17th<\/sup> and 18th<\/sup> Centuries. In the Declaration of Independence, we see the implications of Social Contract theory flowering as a source of action.<\/p>\n

The Declaration of Independence is largely a statement of the theory and a list of offenses by which it is alleged that King George III had abrogated the social contract by breaching his duties as king. While Jefferson did not consciously quote from Locke in creating this list, he was familiar with his writings and some of the language of the Declaration of Independence is almost a verbatim quotation from Locke. [5]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> As one author puts it:<\/p>\n

Locke says that, once a man enters into the compact by which he surrenders his natural rights to the protection of the body politic, he has not given up his right to return to “the liberty of the state of nature.” There are two happenings, the occurrence of either of which will ipso facto justify such a return: (1) where the government is dissolved by some calamity, or (2) where the government, “by some public acts, cuts him off from being any longer a member of it.” <\/span>[6]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It was Jefferson\u2019s goal in drafting the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress\u2019 goal in adopting it, to build a case that the public actions of King George III breached the Social Compact to such a degree that the bond of union with Great Britain had been broken beyond repair.<\/p>\n

The Community Adopting the Declaration<\/b><\/p>\n

The Declaration of Independence begins with the following words:<\/p>\n

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. [7]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Right at the beginning, it is important to note that the Declaration of Independence did not create the \u201cpeople\u201d who issued it. According to the authors, the \u201cpeople\u201d already existed<\/u> in the form of the Thirteen Colonies bound together by bonds of culture, self-interest, language, history. It is this community that is issuing this declaration and stating their intent to be a free people.<\/p>\n

If the Thirteen colonies had not already been bound together as a social community prior to the Declaration of Independence, they could never have found the unity necessary to unanimously adopt it or to prosecute the war that would be necessary to win the independence declared. This is consistent with the continuing observation of this blog: Community comes before a social contract; community is not created by contract, even if it is given form and content by such a contract<\/b>.<\/p>\n

This is an important point that current political and social leaders might ponder. It is not possible to bind together a nation as large as the United States of America\u2014now fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other holdings consisting of 350,000,000 people of highly diverse racial, cultural, religious, and economic backgrounds without common values and a deep sense of community (what I have called \u201cPolitical Love\u201d). Our current national division is symptomatic of the failure of our leaders, political, social, educational, and economic to maintain a sound national unity of relationship founded on common life together. The radical individualism of the Enlightenment project has reached a point in which the necessary social bonds of mutual respect and love are unfortunately dissolving.<\/p>\n

The Role of Natural Law in the Declaration of Independence<\/b><\/p>\n

As indicated earlier, Thomas Jefferson was the principle author of the Declaration, and it is his voice that is most often heard in the document. [8]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> A student of Locke, as well as trained in the legal tradition of Natural Law thinking, Jefferson was a classic Natural Law thinker, but his natural law thinking had a distinctly Jeffersonian and American twist. Jefferson, unlike Hobbes and Rousseau, believed that natural law placed \u201crightful limitations\u201d on what political magistrates might do. In particular, no magistrate could usurp rights which were rights of the people. [9]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> Political power, however extensive, was essentially limited by the natural rights of people to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. [10]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span> A political regime which pushes beyond the fundamental limitations of their power can and should be replaced.<\/p>\n

In the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress put it this way:<\/p>\n

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –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. [11]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We have a long way to go in these blogs, and the decline of Natural Law theory and its modern proponents will be examined in detail. At this point, however, I want to observe that American society is unlikely to exit its current decline, with its excessively Hobbesian, \u201cwinner take all,\u201d power driven form of politics unless some form of \u201cnatural law\u201d thinking can be restored. It seems to me that the fundamentally relational nature of the universe and of human beings, combined with the notion that the capacity to create and seek values inherent in human nature, does provide a basis for a kind of thinking about politics that places limitations on what governments can and should do and which can undergird the human desire for freedom and some right to determine their own political future.<\/p>\n

The Rational for Independence<\/b><\/p>\n

As indicated earlier, for legal as well as political reasons, the Continental Congress felt that it needed to set out as clearly and as persuasively as possible the reasons for their departure from rule by Great Britain. In the declaration, it is put this way:<\/p>\n

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–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.<\/p>\n

The Continental Congress accepted that it was not proper to change a form of government for \u201clight or transient causes,\u201d that is for unimportant or temporary issues of governance. Instead the dissolving the current social and political bonds could only be justified by \u201ca long train of abuses\u201d which were insufferable and amounted to tyranny.<\/p>\n

The Declaration of Independence then sets out a long list of offences, including abuses of administrative, executive, judicial, and legislative rights of the colonies, depriving the colonies of their fundamental rights of local rule. Additionally, there is listed a series of military actions, including making British military rule superior to local legislative powers, conducting maritime warfare against the colonies, and incited domestic uprisings. Finally, economically, the British government had passed taxes without the consent of those who would pay them and restricted trade in such a way as to harm the property and economic livelihood of the colonists.<\/p>\n

Today in America, we hear much about the need for revolutions from groups on the right and left. On the right, questions about the legality of the last election have been raised and potential restrictions flowing from greater regulation of personal activity, are suggested by some as grounds for a revolution. On the left, one hears calls for revolutionary action on grounds from racism to economic inequality. In the midst of a revolutionary era, we might glean from the Declaration of Independence some principles and hope for the American future:<\/p>\n

1.<\/span><\/span>   <\/span><\/span><\/span>First, isolated problems with elections or other governmental failings are not grounds for a change in the fundamental character of the government. These sorts of issues fit within the definition of \u201clight or transient causes\u201d mentioned in the Declaration.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/span><\/span>     <\/span><\/span><\/span>Second, unlike the situation facing the Thirteen Colonies in 1776, the American government, in its legislature, courts, and executive branch have shown great willingness to address grievances. We may not always like the way a particular Congress or administration addresses a problem, but they are have done so in the past. One of the complaints registered by the Continental Congress was that <\/span>repeated<\/u><\/span> attempts to reason with the British Government had yielded no response. <\/span>[12]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> This is simply not the case today.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.<\/span><\/span>     <\/span><\/span><\/span>Third, historically, as with slavery, racial injustice, and the economic inequality created by the industrial revolution, the American government has shown a remarkable ability to adapt and make changes, some fundamental, to respond to the needs of citizens. Thus, there is no \u201clong train of abuses and usurpations\u201d of which the Continental Congress complained. <\/span>[13]<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> In fact, history indicates that our democracy has eventually addressed even the most imbedded social problems.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no reason to believe that our system of government is fundamentally unable to adapt to the conflicts and inequalities of today, just as it has reacted and adapted to challenges of the past. The history of our national willingness to confront issues, legislate and change, even our constitutional provisions by amendment should be a source of hope, not despair.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

The Second Continental Congress, and in particular the principle draftspersons of the Declaration of Independence, were well versed both in classical political philosophy and in the thinking of the most recent proponents of representative government. They were also practically moderate in their approach to what they knew would be considered treason by the British government. They began a revolution, but they were not revolutionaries. For the most part, they were practical politicians attempting to find a solution to a difficult problem, the nature of which bound thirteen colonies together in a way that would lead to the United States of America, the freedoms we enjoy, and the stable government that we have enjoyed for almost two and a half centuries.<\/p>\n

Before closing, I want to mention on last element of the Declaration. The rights it believes all human beings enjoy are those given to them by their \u201cCreator.\u201d It closes with a reference to \u201cthe Supreme Judge of the World.\u201d In other words, the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that they were the creatures bound by some kind of duties and obligations to the Creator. They were politicians acting in human history to impact human institutions, but they felt that they themselves were responsible to a Supreme Judge who had embedded in creation a moral order that impacted the political order. One reason why the American revolution avoided the excess of the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions has to do with the social consequences of Christian faith and the limits it placed on violence and injustice in the conduct of the Revolution and establishment of the new government. The Guillotine and Gulag were simply impossible under the conditions of Christian political morality present at the time of our founding.<\/p>\n

This is not the place for an extensive look at the possible ways in which various religious groups have a common idea of justice as embedded in creation or can productively join in the political project we call \u201cThe United States of America\u201d. It is enough to say that various groups do have such views and the potential to gather together in a society based upon more than law and force. Secular people do not have, nor are they willing to grant, a divine foundation for a social order. However, there are many secular voices devoted to the search for truth and a just society. The question is, \u201cCan various religious and secular groups work together in the way the signers of the Declaration of Independence worked together to bring freedom to the New World?\u201d I think that the answer can well be, \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a hint as to how this might be done, I want to return for a moment to the critical realist view that ideals are real in a noetic sense, and are progressively revealed or unfolded to those who seek those ideals as part of a community of inquiry and action. Religious and secular people are on a common quest for a just society. The completion of that task is never complete. It is always before us on one way or another. It transcends our immediate understandings and capacities\u2014and it always will. Nevertheless, we have abundant reason to hope that over time we can improve the condition of our society.<\/p>\n

As human history unfolds, we are all seeking this thing we call a \u201cJust social order.\u201d It is not required that we agree as to the precise contents of that order in order to work together in a democratic society. What is required is a willingness to dialogue, to hear all opinions, to debate, and then decide, with the knowledge that there will be another election and another time to revisit any decision if it turns out to be wrong. This requires a sense of community and mutual respect and love among differing people all too often lacking in our society today.<\/p>\n

Copyright 2021, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

[1]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> Andrew C McLaughlin, Foundations of American Constitutionalism<\/i> (Greenwich CN: Fawcett Books, 1961), 133.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> I do not have time to analyze this point further, but it is important to know that the American Revolution was not inevitable. Mistakes were made. One great mistake was a failure of the British to recognize that direct rule of 2,000,000 people thousands of miles away was an impossibility. Local rule in some form was necessary.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> There was at the time and still is today some controversy over how much influence was exerted by Adams and others over the final form of the document. It is clear that Jefferson was the primary draftsperson, but that others had a direct impact on the final form of the Declaration. In my view, what is singular is the unity of vision that the drafters and the Continental Congress exhibited in the document.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> See, Michael W Smith,<\/span> \u201c<\/strong><\/span>What happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?<\/i><\/span> <\/strong><\/i><\/span>This is the Price They Paid\u201d Posted on the Weekly Register Call<\/strong><\/span> <\/i><\/span>at <\/span>https:\/\/www.weeklyregistercall.com\/2020\/07\/02\/what-happened-to-the-signers-of-the-declaration-of-independence\/<\/a><\/span> (Downloaded April 16, 2021).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> See, Kenneth D. Stern, \u201cJohn Locke and the Declaration of Independenc<\/span>e\u201d 15 Cleveland State Law Review 19 (1966). This article sets out the arguments for and against the influence of Locke on Jefferson and others.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> Id<\/u>, at 197.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> Declaration of Independence (US 1776).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> It is important to note that Adams did play an important role, as did the other members of the Committee of Five who prepared the draft submitted to the Continental Congress. Jefferson\u2019s draft was modified by the original group, and then modified as the Continental Congress adopted it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> Stern, at 190.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> I have combined here Locke\u2019s thinking and Jefferson\u2019s and Madison\u2019s listing of the fundamental limitations natural law places on political power.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> Declaration of Independence (US 1776).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> Thus, the Declaration of Independence says, \u201cIn every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.\u201d In the case of our national government, there has been no such silence over the wrongs the left and right frequently cite to support the ineptitude and misguided actions of our government.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> Id.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This week, we reach an important milestone in our look at political philosophy. This blog looks at a seminal document for the United States of America\u2014our Declaration of Independence. The goal is to introduce the political thinking of Thomas Jefferson (and the members of the Continental Congress that enacted the Declaration), revealing how thinkers we … Continue reading Compact Theory in Action: The Declaration of Independence<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4CzBH-IP","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2779"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2779\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2782,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2779\/revisions\/2782"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gchristopherscruggs.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}