Latest / Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: 250 Years of the Declaration of Independence / Jefferson and the Intellectual Origins of the Declaration of Independence

Transcript

Jefferson and the Intellectual Origins of the Declaration of Independence · Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: 250 Years of the Declaration of Independence

• 0:08
  Speaker 0: When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve political bands which have connected them with another and assume among powers on earth a separate equal station.
• 0:22
  Speaker 0: A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare causes which impel them into separation.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: Welcome to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: a podcast commemorating The Two Hundred Fifty Year Anniversary Of The Declaration of Independence.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: This show is sponsored by The American Centrum in Hamburg Germany And I'm your host Andrew Sola.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: Thomas Jefferson as we all know was the primary author of The Declaration Of Independence.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Not only was Jefferson an eloquent and persuasive writer He also botanist An economist A lawyer and an architect.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: Furthermore, he was a farmer—and politician!
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Of course, also as slaveholder with the complex and confusing understanding of men's
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: rights."
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: He is religious too but how it is hard to tell.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: But let us not forget that he was also a historian…and philosopher.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: In short, man has many talents...and many contradictions.
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: But for today's episode, I want you to focus just on two of Jefferson's careers.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: His career as a historian and his career as philosopher more specifically as political philosopher.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: So we sit here in twenty-twenty six looking back at the Declaration of Independence.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: from two hundred fifty years away.
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: We are looking back Thomas Jefferson Our own historical perspective and our own philosophical perspective, but we can't forget that Jefferson two hundred fifty years ago was also looking back.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Fifty a hundred to one hundred fifty thousands of years from his historical perspective And From His Philosophical Perspective.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: In other words We today are analyzing documenting and deconstructing A document That Was Written By An Expert in history and political philosophy, who was also looking back analyzing unpacking and deconstructing texts that he had read.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: So in short understanding all of the historical and philosophical nuances in Thomas Jefferson's declaration is a huge undertaking And here are some questions we might ask Which aspects of history were most important to Jefferson?
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: Which historical periods was he referencing in the Declaration?
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: How did you see The Colonies and New United States fitting into a longer, historical narrative.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: And lastly, how can we combine all of this information?
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: All of the philosophy and history to create a more profound understanding of the Declaration of Independence.
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: As I said these are heavy questions...and it is an enormous job!
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: But i'm fortunate that someone here with me today will help us answer those questions.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: Professor Steven Sarson Welcome Steve.
• 3:36
  Speaker 0: Thank you
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: Stephen is Professor of American Civilization at Jean Moulin University in Lyon, France.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: He has authored numerous articles and books about American history including Barack Obama, American historian also the tobacco plantation south In The Early American Atlantic World And Also British America.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: fifteen hundred to eighteen hundred creating colonies imagining an empire.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: And most importantly for our talk today, his brand new book titled the course of human events.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: The Declaration Of Independence and the historical origins of the United States was just published by the University of Virginia Press and a link is in the show notes.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: So Stephen as we embark on this intellectual history about the declaration Why don't you start with something very simple those first words?
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: You read when of human events.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: Why do you like to start there when you start discussing the Declaration?
• 4:43
  Speaker 0: Well, we usually think that the Declaration is framed by the self-evident truths.
• 4:49
  Speaker 0: We hold these truths to be self evident or men are created equal and doubted By their creator's certain unalienable rights And we often think about them as defining words in the Decoration.
• 5:01
  Speaker 0: Some even scholars say they're first words.
• 5:05
  Speaker 0: But the first words are actually when in a course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to separate from another, etc.
• 5:15
  Speaker 0: Those were their first words and... In a document like this which is supposed be short or supposed to be concise I took the presumption that they would all words will be important And then frame the rest according to the first paragraph.
• 5:34
  Speaker 0: And so that got me to thinking about the real meanings of that first paragraph and how it would affect the rest.
• 5:41
  Speaker 0: In particular, I think most important words are when in the course human events and laws of nature and natures guard that entitle Americans.
• 5:55
  Speaker 0: And I think the more thought about it, the more put those two things together.
• 6:00
  Speaker 0: So we have a course of human events that The Declaration talks about and dates to the creation of Those Laws Of Nature In Nature's Guard That goes all way back to Creation itself... ...and that Course Of Human Events is then judged according To The Precepts Of The LawsOfNatureInNature'sGuard.
• 6:19
  Speaker 0: Once you start to see that in First Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
• 6:25
  Speaker 0: The rest of the declaration starts to look different, and it starts looking less like abstract philosophy with these high ideals posed in the first part of the preamble than then there's this kind of awkwardly attached set of grievances that seem petty by comparison.
• 6:43
  Speaker 0: but actually if you start to see the course of human events defined by and analyzed according to The Laws Of Nature And God.
• 6:57
  Speaker 0: The rest of the document starts look like a general history if humankind, then in particular history on American Colonies and Revolution.
• 7:05
  Speaker 0: Then it start make more coherent sense.
• 7:09
  Speaker 0: that looks different from how we've looked at traditionally since originally written.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: It's almost stunning that Jefferson is.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: And just a couple sentences, I'm going to describe the history of humanity.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: You know?
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: When in the course of human events... I'll just like summarize all of human history and these next couple of sentences.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: and here we go!
• 7:34
  Speaker 0: Indeed they did that didn't they?
• 7:37
  Speaker 0: in the eighteenth century i'm gonna tell you The Universal Laws Of Nature etc.
• 7:42
  Speaker 0: this was what the Enlightenment is about trying to boil down these things.
• 7:47
  Speaker 0: That said The thing is with the Declaration, we've become accustomed to thinking of it as being based on natural rights theory.
• 7:58
  Speaker 0: And then that's the first thing whereas Natural Law is a broader and a broader thing.
• 8:06
  Speaker 0: but also We tend to see this kind of detached from older traditions Of American political writing and they go all the way back to the sixteen sixties.
• 8:18
  Speaker 0: but obviously there was a special effusion of them from the seventeen sixties when parliament started interfering in colonial affairs.
• 8:28
  Speaker 0: And, yeah you can say win in the course human events.
• 8:32
  Speaker 0: it's very truncated If you read the declaration in the context of the older political literature, not just the political literature from seventeen seventy-four but going back further in time all those pamphlets or those petitions and decorations before seventeen seventy four before seventeen seventies.
• 8:56
  Speaker 0: You start to see what he means when it says things like that great phrases like the course of human events and you start to see what he means when he talks about circumstances of our immigration settlement here.
• 9:11
  Speaker 0: And, these sentences are loaded with meanings that were much more familiar for people then than they are now.
• 9:19
  Speaker 0: so it all looks a bit abstract.
• 9:21
  Speaker 0: but at this time as people would be thinking yeah I know what the circumstance of our integration settlement was You're right.
• 9:33
  Speaker 0: There does seem to be this kind of enormous, these potentious phrases.
• 9:39
  Speaker 0: but really behind them there is something very substantial?
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: Well it's portentous and I guess... It's always hard when we look back from two hundred fifty years in the future.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: But some historians do say Jefferson very much knew how important this document was in human history.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know personally if i agree with that because it's kind of happening as its happening for him.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: It is difficult...I guess it's difficult to realize how significant this document would be in North American history and one could argue in the History
• 10:18
  Speaker 0: Of The World.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: but what I want start doing now unpacking some language there Opening sentence, and you've already mentioned this idea of natural rights theory.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: And we have the laws of nature in that opening sentence.
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: Can you just unpacked that for an audience?
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: That might not be familiar with what all of that means.
• 10:40
  Speaker 0: Sure well The first thing I would say about it is natural rights really important but they're only a part of natural
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: law.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: and
• 10:51
  Speaker 0: Natural Law I mean, what it boils down to for John Locke is something that was created by God exists in nature and the principal features of natural law are That no one whether in a state-of-nature or in civil society wherever No one should harm anyone else.
• 11:13
  Speaker 0: In their enjoyment of life Liberty possessions unalienable rights And that applies Even in a state of nature, there are laws.
• 11:24
  Speaker 0: The Laws Of Nature And Of God Natural law and those are supposed to continue to exist In more perfect form in civil society.
• 11:35
  Speaker 0: People Are Supposed To obey Those natural laws not to harm others in their life.
• 11:39
  Speaker 0: liberty Impossessions and Governments Are Suppose To Secure Those Rights?
• 11:45
  Speaker 0: I think we need to think of the Declaration as not just resting on natural rights, but on natural law because there is another that right-to life.
• 11:54
  Speaker 0: If someone takes your life or attempts to do so then you have recourse to The Ultimate—the first Law Of Nature and God which is self protection.
• 12:09
  Speaker 0: And so things then start to get more complicated than they just are in natural rights theory.
• 12:14
  Speaker 0: If you embed that into the law, there's all sorts of ways in which You're entitled To actually alienate someone else from their Natural right or life liberty Or property The obvious example being In a civil society if your member is a civil Society and you commit crime You do, in fact alienate those unalienable rights.
• 12:40
  Speaker 0: It is the job of government In the name of securing other people's unalignable right to execute People Imprisoned people find people in Other words take away that life liberty or personal their property as depending on the severity of crime it's also necessary to protect a people from external as well as internal enemies and external enemies, then we start to think about enslaved people.
• 13:10
  Speaker 0: We started thinking about Native Americans and so you know if the decorations are about natural law than things a lot more complicated that they initially appear If we just focus on the business of natural
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: rights.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: I was struck as you were talking about the life, liberty and property of course.
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: The declaration reads Life Liberty in the pursuit of happiness And that's always troubled me.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: why did Jefferson?
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: Eliminate what might be the more natural third part of that triumvirate to property and choose pursuit of Happiness instead?
• 13:46
  Speaker 0: hmmm i think he Was probably just going for a broader phrase.
• 13:51
  Speaker 0: one thing happiness.
• 13:54
  Speaker 0: I mean, there are many meanings and historians have written some very great books about the mainly different means of happiness.
• 13:59
  Speaker 0: Well now think when it comes to decoration or as a specific meaning The word happiness is used a few times.
• 14:06
  Speaker 0: you know people form government to secure their safety And happiness.
• 14:10
  Speaker 0: so you see this word through the declaration.
• 14:14
  Speaker 0: Pursuit Of Happiness i think relates To being able to leave a place to expatriate yourself, leave your old subjecthood behind and start again either in the new country under their laws as previously established or an estate of nature.
• 14:33
  Speaker 0: As America was perceived to be.
• 14:35
  Speaker 0: And so I think that pursuit of happiness being often portrayed in colonial promotional literature that attempted to persuade people You know, and improve those colonies.
• 14:53
  Speaker 0: Improve their populations in economies The idea of happiness there was you'd have political liberty and liberty of religion And you would also be able to acquire property.
• 15:04
  Speaker 0: So property is kind of embedded into the pursuit of happiness.
• 15:09
  Speaker 0: What happiness?
• 15:11
  Speaker 0: There's a phrase from Micah who often used it A man can sit under his fig tree and enjoy the fruits of his labour, his property in other words.
• 15:22
  Speaker 0: And safely enjoy it because there's no oppressive government or religion.
• 15:26
  Speaker 0: The idea I think behind a pursuit of happiness is you go to America... ...and secure your liberty & your property So properties inherent in it!
• 15:38
  Speaker 0: And so is the idea of America being somehow separate from Britain.
• 15:44
  Speaker 0: And that's all connected to the idea of parliament.
• 15:46
  Speaker 0: The British Parliament has no business in the American colonies, so it signals them.
• 15:52
  Speaker 0: So I think the pursuit of happiness was something very American In this respect but also dates back to...I mean Locke.
• 16:01
  Speaker 0: John Locke again talked about how if you're not happy under a political regime or under You cannot personally overthrow a government that eight people more broadly has assented to, consented but you can leave and go somewhere else.
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: Interesting.
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: So there's sort of an implication, implication of activity there it's not.
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: he could have said also life liberty and happy happiness.
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: when you choose this kind of activation mode pursuit of happiness like yeah It is a constantly ongoing thing.
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah
• 16:43
  Speaker 0: that right.
• 16:45
  Speaker 0: I mean people can multiply, pursue happiness.
• 16:48
  Speaker 0: They could go from Britain and leave Britain to Virginia And then they don't like Virginia or somewhere else.
• 16:55
  Speaker 0: So yeah the pursuit of happiness is one of those eternal laws that you can do That.
• 17:04
  Speaker 0: There's an interesting letter i should have mentioned actually From Jefferson To John Manners in eighteen seventeen Where he describes what he meant by the pursuit of happiness.
• 17:15
  Speaker 0: He's talking specifically about a Virginia law that during the rewriting of Virginia laws in the late seventeen seventies, he promoted on immigration but was specifically based on the natural rights of expatriation.
• 17:34
  Speaker 0: and what he wrote to John Manners is I considered then this the pursuit of happiness to be something that is we receive from The King Of Kings not From kings I forgot an often men and from nature Etc.
• 17:50
  Speaker 0: And you know, i would challenge anyone To draw on a map?
• 17:54
  Speaker 0: the limits of where people can pursue happiness.
• 17:59
  Speaker 0: and so it he was i think very clear if you know where to look about what he meant by the pursuit of happiness in seventeen seventy-eight.
• 18:07
  Speaker 0: and indeed it is an eternal right, its ongoing.
• 18:09
  Speaker 0: You can just keep doing it.
• 18:11
  Speaker 0: And for Locke this was how there are so many governments In The World.
• 18:16
  Speaker 0: People Are Pursuing Happiness Setting Up New Governments Here There There etc.
• 18:21
  Speaker 0: So yeah It's very much an enduring process
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: As we continue with the Declaration Of Independence here We have that preamble when in the course of human events.
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: We have dimension of the laws of nature and if nature is God then we have these The mention of the unalienable rights life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: And then he says to secure.
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: These rights governments are instituted among men right?
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: And we've kind of discussed that already But on the next site.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: this is the one that I want to focus on now.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive Of these ends of securing life liberty property It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute New governments, all right.
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: So how do you read that next sentence there?
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: Basically he's talking about The Right of Revolution.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah
• 19:17
  Speaker 0: absolutely The right of revolution inheres again in the laws of nature and nature's God, it is not exactly an unalienable right because it doesn't belong to individuals.
• 19:31
  Speaker 0: It belongs to A people And the language is quite specific there when he talks about A People or One People.
• 19:42
  Speaker 0: So it's a collective right, but it follows from that natural equality and liberty that exists in the state of nature.
• 19:51
  Speaker 0: Because I think what we have here... ...in those first phrases in the preamble beginning with We Hold These Truths To Be Suffered.
• 20:00
  Speaker 0: All Men Are Created Equal.
• 20:02
  Speaker 0: That is about the State Of Nature.
• 20:03
  Speaker 0: They are created equal.
• 20:04
  Speaker 0: It doesn't say all men ARE equal.
• 20:06
  Speaker 0: It says all men are created equals And that refers to natural equality, which for Locke boiled down into two things.
• 20:14
  Speaker 0: That he argued against Filmer.
• 20:15
  Speaker 0: Filmer Robert Filmer, Patriarcha, argued that Kings by divine right God granted Adam absolute ownership of everything and absolute power over everyone.
• 20:31
  Speaker 0: So for Locque the idea that all men are created equal rests on absolute individual freedom, there's no government and a right to access the earth that everyone has because of their right for life and therefore sustenance.
• 20:46
  Speaker 0: So these are equalities in and liberties in a state nature.
• 20:51
  Speaker 0: That means you can only give this up by consent Because your entirely free God is granted you that and nature has implanted it.
• 21:01
  Speaker 0: But if follows from Government By Consent the fact that these rights are unalienable, but if a government oppresses those right or fails to protect them then you must have a right at least collectively.
• 21:18
  Speaker 0: The problem there is... You've already submitted yourself to the rule of people when you enter into society and abandon your individual self-sovereignty and you do come under a government.
• 21:31
  Speaker 0: It's Government by Consent, it is not imposed by God on giving power to an absolute monarch at all but nonetheless You have committed Yourself To obedience to the government that belongs to You But collectively as people And therefore its only collectively As a People That You can Revolve Under Certain Circumstances.
• 21:55
  Speaker 0: So All of this Is Linked.
• 21:57
  Speaker 0: I think Its All Also part of the history, because for Locke and I think fellow founders too all this was real.
• 22:05
  Speaker 0: All this really happened in the past.
• 22:08
  Speaker 0: And when the declaration goes on to qualify The Right To Revolution by saying prudence will dictate that people will suffer while evils are sufferable It says all experience has shown That People Will Suffer While Evils Are Suffrable.
• 22:25
  Speaker 0: And so again, it's embedded in history.
• 22:27
  Speaker 0: So we have a state of nature that really existed A social contract that really happened.
• 22:32
  Speaker 0: and then there was also natural equality and liberty.
• 22:37
  Speaker 0: men people collectively must retain sovereignty therefore right to revolution.
• 22:43
  Speaker 0: That is historical too and Locke did that at various points.
• 22:49
  Speaker 0: So one thing all follows from another.
• 22:53
  Speaker 0: It's not a set of abstract unrelated principles, it is the set of historical facts and other all grounded in laws of nature and God.
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: so yeah he says again we shouldn't just be revolting for light and transient causes.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: you need serious reasons to do this deliberately but if indeed a light and transient cause, then it is your right.
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: It is their duty to throw off such
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: government.".
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: That's something I don't understand that maybe you can explain.
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: why is it a moral imperative?
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: He's saying it as your duty...I mean i don't know if its a legal or natural right.
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: duty religious duty immoral duty Why do we have our duties to revolt?
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: What type of duty are
• 23:44
  Speaker 0: they?
• 23:46
  Speaker 0: Okay, it is your right.
• 23:48
  Speaker 0: I think here the language and its in Jefferson's original as well isn't the final version.
• 23:53
  Speaker 0: so they thought about this And then left it has.
• 23:55
  Speaker 0: it was You have a natural right other people to revolt.
• 24:01
  Speaker 0: you also have a duty because The point at which you revolve when along train of abuses new serpents reveals a direct object to impose absolute tyranny.
• 24:15
  Speaker 0: I mean, i might be mixing the phrases up but they both two phrases.
• 24:19
  Speaker 0: it says words similar to that in the declaration and preamble.
• 24:23
  Speaker 0: when that happens you not only have the right But also the duty because God gave you your liberty And Your equality In a state of nature You Have.
• 24:36
  Speaker 0: When we talk about unalienable rights It's Not Just That The government can't take them away, though that is true.
• 24:43
  Speaker 0: But it's also the case.
• 24:46
  Speaker 0: you can give them a way by misbehaving afterwards by committing crimes or endangering the life-liberty property of others and then you will be duly punished but at create a social country.
• 25:00
  Speaker 0: You cannot give them away, God gave it to you.
• 25:03
  Speaker 0: and similarly if the government tries to take him away from me then I have been a duty to guard to attempt to preserve that you may fail maybe killed but he must try and so needs its part of rhetoric at the declaration but is also very real.
• 25:21
  Speaker 0: Later on Jefferson would say that disobedience to tyrants, disobedience of God.
• 25:27
  Speaker 0: and Benjamin Franklin who was also in the committee to write The Decoration said the same.
• 25:33
  Speaker 0: And this is not just some fancy slogan This is a theological position That God gave you the rights that You have, the equality that You Have.
• 25:45
  Speaker 0: It's your duty to preserve them.
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: Now let me just be a little bit critical of that point.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: Okay, obviously One ought to make the leap also two hundred fifty years ago.
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: Then it would be the slaves duty to revolt against slavery right?
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: So how is Jefferson managing to skirt that implication I guess in this line?
• 26:10
  Speaker 0: okay well I think again we have to put that back into the wider natural law theory of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
• 26:20
  Speaker 0: And there's a difference, though between seventeen and eighteen centuries which i'll come to in a second!
• 26:25
  Speaker 0: The laws of slavery were at least elaborated by Hugo Grosius in the early seventeen century supposedly based on the eternal laws of nature and God... ...and under this if you are in a just war you may lose and then to preserve your life, You may give yourself up to slavery or an individual can by being a noxious creature Or something like that.
• 26:53
  Speaker 0: So you can volunteer yourself into slavery so that Can happen?
• 26:57
  Speaker 0: Can exist.
• 26:58
  Speaker 0: But there are two problems when it comes to the Declaration of Independence in the eighteenth century one they all following log for lock.
• 27:09
  Speaker 0: Everyone is born equal as well as created equal.
• 27:12
  Speaker 0: And that introduces real problems of slavery.
• 27:15
  Speaker 0: because how do you then have hereditary slavery?
• 27:18
  Speaker 0: It looks very clear, You can surrender yourself to slavery as an individual but you cannot surrender your children.
• 27:26
  Speaker 0: They are born free.
• 27:27
  Speaker 0: and also you cannot surrendered your property Because it belongs To your children in principle by the laws of nature and God.
• 27:36
  Speaker 0: So this is a real problem that Jefferson has to deal with.
• 27:40
  Speaker 0: And I think there's another problem that Jefferson himself introduces, and that is the problem of the slave trade.
• 27:48
  Speaker 0: as you know in his draft declaration who launches an attack on the slave trait.
• 27:52
  Speaker 0: however it's actually an Attack On The Illegal Slave Trade against people never offended him.
• 27:59
  Speaker 0: so This Is Not A Just War It'S A Piratical Warfare As He Calls It.
• 28:04
  Speaker 0: And so what I think he's doing there?
• 28:05
  Speaker 0: and that's where it starts to deal with this problem.
• 28:08
  Speaker 0: That you've rightly identified Um, and its very awkward and very difficult.
• 28:13
  Speaker 0: It doesn't really work.
• 28:15
  Speaker 0: But what is trying to say?
• 28:16
  Speaker 0: Is the king obtruded these people on us for his illegal slave trading and it's an entirely supply side.
• 28:23
  Speaker 0: You know, it's not like we didn't demand these slaves.
• 28:25
  Speaker 0: they were obtrudied honest.
• 28:26
  Speaker 0: That's the exact word of users.
• 28:28
  Speaker 0: um, you Know now In inciting or yet he uses word exciting which is important.
• 28:36
  Speaker 0: He's exiting them to rebel against us and kill us And this very much.
• 28:42
  Speaker 0: it's them in our sling
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: match,
• 28:44
  Speaker 0: so what we have is a situation where Jefferson trying to argue?
• 28:49
  Speaker 0: Um in response of the very point you make that was made by many people at the time Is all your talking about equality and liberty bold?
• 28:58
  Speaker 0: how do How do you deal with the fact of slavery?
• 29:01
  Speaker 0: Samuel Johnson asked that, how is it?
• 29:03
  Speaker 0: we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers at Negroes.
• 29:06
  Speaker 0: Or what Jefferson's saying... ...is It's a king's fault because he obtruded them on us and now He's getting into revolt against Us.
• 29:16
  Speaker 0: And What That Invokes Then Is Something We Talked About A Little Earlier The First Law Of Nature In God If Self Preservation.
• 29:25
  Speaker 0: And so you have a right to enslave people and keep them in slavery, even kill them if they are threatened your life.
• 29:32
  Speaker 0: You do even have a duty!
• 29:34
  Speaker 0: Later on Jefferson twice made this famous phrase about we can either hold him or safely let him go.
• 29:46
  Speaker 0: justice is one scale self-preservation in the other.
• 29:50
  Speaker 0: So he recognised that.
• 29:51
  Speaker 0: ultimately what will be done?
• 29:55
  Speaker 0: So his next question is so and he asked this question himself presumably because He's asked it in the notes on state of Virginia.
• 30:03
  Speaker 0: Why not free?
• 30:06
  Speaker 0: enslaved people an incorporate them into the State, but that's where race comes here.
• 30:10
  Speaker 0: And then starts to argue that black people are aesthetically inferior, morally inferior and intellectually inferior.
• 30:20
  Speaker 0: There's long painful diatribe about the shortcomings as he saw it at Black People.
• 30:26
  Speaker 0: And I think a key thing.
• 30:27
  Speaker 0: there is an interesting phrase That i make alot of in the book where He says never could...I have never encountered A black person who could You know, they have equal memories but I've never encountered one who could issue a thought above the level of plain narration.
• 30:48
  Speaker 0: And what that means is... They cannot judge The course Of human events according to laws of nature and God!
• 30:55
  Speaker 0: They are aware That their treated unfairly and unkindly.
• 30:59
  Speaker 0: So there might rebel.
• 31:00
  Speaker 0: But that rebel will not involve patient's sufferance, obedience to the laws of nature and nature, it'll be a nihilistic kind about bursted anger.
• 31:12
  Speaker 0: And that is highly dangerous.
• 31:14
  Speaker 0: hence because of black inferiority you can't incorporate them.
• 31:18
  Speaker 0: You have to enslave until you can expatriate.
• 31:22
  Speaker 0: So thats how Jefferson deals with this.
• 31:24
  Speaker 0: It'a problem.
• 31:24
  Speaker 0: but basically what are your gonna do?
• 31:26
  Speaker 0: Self preservation in one hand justice in another?
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: Just just a quick follow-up question.
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: and again, I just want your kind of historians assessment.
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: Just for me listening to what you said it sounds like And sometimes You know you see this in many different parts of the world today and political debates?
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: You See thinkers tying themselves and knots trying to justify A position that they feel right have to justify.
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: so you know i look at This is being jefferson being a politician no longer thinker No longer philosopher, but trying to summon some idea somewhere that allows him to escape this contradiction he's put himself in.
• 32:09
  Speaker 0: I think that is partly right!
• 32:13
  Speaker 0: He had to answer the question because it has been a real political question during The Revolution with all of his talk about liberty and equality...but on that he had the answer philosophically.
• 32:28
  Speaker 0: And his philosophical answer to this was for him, laws of nature can sometimes trump natural rights.
• 32:38
  Speaker 0: Natural rights are part of the Laws Of Nature but so is the right of self-defence and self protection.
• 32:44
  Speaker 0: So he had his answer worked out philosophically speaking.
• 32:49
  Speaker 0: What he gets wrong?
• 32:51
  Speaker 0: Is of course The Racism.
• 32:53
  Speaker 0: I mean it's just so profoundly wrong that its quite shocking.
• 32:57
  Speaker 0: But he also got the history wrong because The King did not really obtrude Africans on America, On the American colonies.
• 33:07
  Speaker 0: There was plenty of demand for it including from Jefferson's own ancestors.
• 33:11
  Speaker 0: So where He tied himself in knots and got a little wrong It Was very political if you like...was In the History rather than in the natural law.
• 33:20
  Speaker 0: Natural Law provided for slavery international relations,
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: but not necessarily as a racial basis.
• 33:28
  Speaker 0: Not necessary on a racial basis?
• 33:29
  Speaker 0: No that's correct.
• 33:30
  Speaker 0: Jefferson had to invoke that um...to get beyond the idea To deal with the problem that people are born equal.
• 33:40
  Speaker 0: His real problem there is with hereditary slavery which he admitted He took in a case In seventeen seventy-one of A man called Samuel Howell who was African American and his mother had been an indentured servant, rather than a enslaved person.
• 34:02
  Speaker 0: And therefore under the Virginia law of maternal inheritance Howell should have been freed and Jefferson took this case.
• 34:11
  Speaker 0: But Jefferson made bigger point on that during the case.
• 34:14
  Speaker 0: That is everyone was born equal to the laws of nature.
• 34:19
  Speaker 0: So, you know he knew this was a problem.
• 34:20
  Speaker 0: so how do you deal with it?
• 34:21
  Speaker 0: Well one.
• 34:22
  Speaker 0: You regard Africans or African Americans collectively as race and then your regard them is inferior.
• 34:31
  Speaker 0: And what are you going to do if we let him go its war open war that will result in the extermination of one race which for him is worse than slavery.
• 34:46
  Speaker 0: but yeah He got the history wrong, he got the racism wrong.
• 34:52
  Speaker 0: But philosophically he had it worked
• 34:54
  Speaker 0: out.".
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: Okay well let's move on to the long list of grievances now that follow these opening two sections of The Declaration Of Independence.
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: and uh... Let's do this fairly quickly and just look at basically how this fits perspective that you'd like to view this document through.
• 35:20
  Speaker 0: First of all, people have their natural rights.
• 35:24
  Speaker 0: the God gave them... People consent to government.
• 35:28
  Speaker 0: and then inherent in all of that is a right-to-revolution.
• 35:31
  Speaker 0: And on next part I'm going backwards.
• 35:36
  Speaker 0: it's important to contextualize those things.
• 35:39
  Speaker 0: so we have this general history of humankind.
• 35:42
  Speaker 0: Then goes into a particular history of the American Congress.
• 35:46
  Speaker 0: Such has been the patient's sufferance at these colonies, and such is now their necessity which constrains them to declare independence.
• 35:56
  Speaker 0: or whatever exact words are The History Of The Present King Of Great Britain Is A History Of Repeated Injuries And Usurpations All Having Indirect Objectly Establishment Of An Absolute Tyranny Over These States.
• 36:07
  Speaker 0: To Prove This Let Facts Be Submitted To A Candid World.
• 36:10
  Speaker 0: So There'S The Continuity There.
• 36:12
  Speaker 0: So the first thing I'd say about the grievances is they have to be fitted into this continuity going back to creation itself through the general history of humankind, through American History.
• 36:23
  Speaker 0: Intervening in that... ...is a phrase in The Conclusions where we've attended to British people and warned them on the unwarrantable jurisdiction of their legislature.
• 36:37
  Speaker 0: And we have warned them about circumstances of our immigration settlement here which is about how they established colonies at their own expense, that are in blood and treasure which if we want to convert it will check us the Native Americans.
• 36:53
  Speaker 0: But this is how we established our freedom and came either under royal charters with which forbade parliamentary taxation on other forms of interference from the internal affairs of the colonies or we came and re-established new societies under a pursuit of happiness, then made alliances with the king.
• 37:16
  Speaker 0: So what we have is the establishment of laws' natural rights, inherent natural rights – inherited English right to representation….
• 37:28
  Speaker 0: …and acquired American rights within the Communists.
• 37:33
  Speaker 0: And every single one of these grievances implicitly and occasionally explicitly references these different kinds of rights.
• 37:43
  Speaker 0: And so the grievances are not just kind of appended onto this great statements about abstract statements, human rights to be or natural rights implemented in future.
• 37:53
  Speaker 0: they follow from those.
• 37:55
  Speaker 0: So it's a very much part of historical narrative that is in entire decoration.
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: I often have looked at the grievances, again through a political lens.
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: I have basically Jefferson is realizing i have all these constituencies that need to be pleased and I need to reference all of their individual separate grievances The farmer living out in the wilderness...the merchant in Philadelphia....the planter with enslaved people..and the Carolinas you know Need to.
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: I also need to convince maybe some people sitting on the fence.
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: So, I really look at the list of grievances as a political Effort to create a big tent here for The Revolution.
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: so how would you respond?
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: To that reading.
• 38:47
  Speaker 0: Oh say this absolutely correct.
• 38:50
  Speaker 0: But I would also say there's not incompatible with grounding them in very real grievances.
• 38:58
  Speaker 0: things that the king or parliament had, either one of them or both of them together have done.
• 39:05
  Speaker 0: That actually do violate The inherent natural rights that violate English inherited rights that violated quite American rights off merchants in Philadelphia, planters in the Carolinas etc.
• 39:20
  Speaker 0: and indeed One of the reasons for putting them in Putting the grievances is these more general terms.
• 39:26
  Speaker 0: as he does it doesn't say the King and parliament passed a stamp act on them, a sugar act.
• 39:31
  Speaker 0: A sugar act than the town's NGT.
• 39:33
  Speaker 0: He says he has combined with others to raise taxes without our consent but that... That is a good way of putting it because it affects everyone And all those constituencies you mentioned.
• 39:49
  Speaker 0: So I think what your saying is true But thats not incompatible being based very much principles that are historically grounded.
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: One of the specific proper nouns that isn't used is one about the Quebec Act, he doesn't mention the Quebec act and he does not mention like the papacy or the pope because they don t want to alienate Catholics.
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: so there's something about these more general terms A vagueness that I would think is intentional.
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: Do you want to make any specific points about just maybe one or two of the grievances?
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: That you think are may be the most significant for you before we move to the final passages in The Declaration In
• 40:37
  Speaker 0: the fifth grievance, For example and i want To consider the Fifth and Sixth together.
• 40:43
  Speaker 0: in the fifth He says that the king has dissolved assemblies.
• 40:50
  Speaker 0: Now, this is one of those powers that became lost in Britain during the... well as a consequence short-term or long term with The Glorious Revolution.
• 41:02
  Speaker 0: Well not George III obviously but British Crown lost their power to dissolve assemblies at will only on a ceremonial way But retain that prerogative in the colonies.
• 41:14
  Speaker 0: so one thing I'd say The decorations grievances are often criticised for attacking the king, but we forget that the King did have these prerogatives in the colonies.
• 41:26
  Speaker 0: And you know...the colonists considered their relationship to be with a king not with parliament and they had good reason to do so!
• 41:34
  Speaker 0: The kings through the governors exercised powers In the colonies which could NOT be exercised in Britain.
• 41:41
  Speaker 0: So he DID have those powers even as a constitutional monarch.
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: So Jefferson here is basically saying, the implication for someone reading this would be that we ought to have this right.
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: That The King cannot do this like in Britain or what?
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: What does he?
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: I don't understand the distinction.
• 42:02
  Speaker 0: it's qualified because He then goes on say that the king has done This only Because We Have Opposed With Manly Firmness His Invasions of the Rights Of People.
• 42:13
  Speaker 0: In other words, he's not dissolved assemblies in a proper way.
• 42:17
  Speaker 0: So He has done it the bad way.
• 42:19
  Speaker 0: It is like the first grievance where he says that he has vetoed laws that are wholesome and necessary for public good.
• 42:25
  Speaker 0: Veto was an accepted power And the colonists wanted The King to veto Parliamentary legislation Even though thats another man written by now.
• 42:34
  Speaker 0: But For the colonist its ok so long as Its Done properly.
• 42:38
  Speaker 0: You can't veto Laws That Are Wholesome and Necessarily for Public Good.
• 42:42
  Speaker 0: And so they say, and the reason I wanted to bring up a fifth grievance there is because it leads into The Sixth.
• 42:46
  Speaker 0: Because then he says... Well, it goes on to say that he has refused for a long time after such dissolution is because others to be elected.
• 43:05
  Speaker 0: Whereby the legislative powers incapable of annihilation have returned to people at large For their exercise.
• 43:14
  Speaker 0: The state remaining in the meantime exposed all the dangers Of invasion from without and convulsion.
• 43:20
  Speaker 0: So It's only explicit mention In the grievances natural rights and natural law of the sovereignty of people.
• 43:30
  Speaker 0: And it's one those, you know that they have a right to protection under government.
• 43:36
  Speaker 0: They've lost them because the kings dissolved the legislature so their state is inoperative.
• 43:41
  Speaker 0: So the powers then devolved too.
• 43:43
  Speaker 0: for people It was about natural rights undergirding civil rights and to have a legislature that's accessible, or sits on regular basis.
• 43:59
  Speaker 0: So it again you know combines natural rights with civil rights American and British ones And I think its very important.
• 44:14
  Speaker 0: remember that the grievances are not detached from The preamble of the decoration.
• 44:20
  Speaker 0: they do follow from that and the same principles.
• 44:23
  Speaker 0: That are enunciated in our preample Do appear?
• 44:26
  Speaker 0: In this case explicitly, but mostly implicitly in grievances.
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: Can you just unpack this phrase like grammatically and intellectually for me?
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: so he has refused To allow to cause others to be elected, right?
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: So he's dissolved the representative assemblies in Massachusetts and Virginia And he has refused to allow new elections.
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: Yes, and then he says whereby the legislative powers Incapable of annihilation there is this weird kind of Passivity to this where by the Legislative Powers have returned to the people at large for their exercise.
• 45:07
  Speaker 1: like How does a legislative power return, is he just saying naturally?
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: Just like while you did this and can't annihilate our rights.
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: therefore by doing this You've given us the right to be independent essentially.
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: Is that am I reading correctly?
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: Effectively
• 45:28
  Speaker 0: yes well To resume government by themselves And one thing that's not happened is a return to the state of nature without society.
• 45:38
  Speaker 0: There are still a society, eh people?
• 45:41
  Speaker 0: So... The legislative powers that are incapable of annihilation have returned to the people at large for their exercise so People can then start to govern them.
• 45:49
  Speaker 0: if they want to set up new assembly They care but basically there'll stop policing and governing themselves under laws Of Nature and Nature as God which are indeed incapable of Annihilation.
• 46:01
  Speaker 0: exist in nature.
• 46:03
  Speaker 0: they were given to people by God, and that includes the power of legislation.
• 46:07
  Speaker 0: Of making laws for
• 46:09
  Speaker 0: yourselves.".
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: Right!
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: And so it's interesting.
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: now just go back a bit concrete history.
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: at around this time too... People like George Washington another leaders various colonies are assuming titles for themselves, and I think they're not even answering letters from various British officials if they don't include these titles that they've adopted for themselves.
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: Like no you must address me as representative or whatever.
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: so there like taking kind of sort of almost a bureaucratic administrative baby step Towards independence in this period by saying, you know and don't even talk to me Don't even write me a letter if you can't use the title of this legislative power that I've assumed.
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: Is my reading this all correctly?
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: That's
• 47:03
  Speaker 0: not in This particular grievance but it is related too In this particular grievances.
• 47:09
  Speaker 0: The first thirteen grievances Are about.
• 47:13
  Speaker 0: everything happened until war broke out April.
• 47:19
  Speaker 0: So this is about things like the closing down of The New York Legislature, or that would have happened under the suspending out to the New York restraining act.
• 47:29
  Speaker 0: And there are a couple other instances where legislatures had got a bit awkward and they closed them in Massachusetts during the Stamp Act crisis after that.
• 47:39
  Speaker 0: This was earlier but... That point at which the legislative powers were incapable of annihilation returned.
• 47:45
  Speaker 0: people large is then operative at this moment that you're talking about.
• 47:51
  Speaker 0: Beginning in Massachusetts, since seventeen seventy-four when in October the former members of the legislature declare themselves to be a provincial congress that gained their power derived from the people of massachusetts rather than from the king And that's the first instance, and then as you say other legislatures do similar things in early seventy-six for more of them.
• 48:16
  Speaker 0: People start adopting titles... The continent of Congress itself starts doing this.
• 48:21
  Speaker 0: This is to prevent the state from being able to approve it.
• 48:25
  Speaker 0: I mean people form government for their own safety and happiness.
• 48:30
  Speaker 0: if ...the government they have then abdicates that responsibility You have your unannihilatable, unalienable rights to then exercise the legislative powers as a people.
• 48:43
  Speaker 0: And that's what they're doing!
• 48:45
  Speaker 0: So yes it is kind of bureaucratic and symbolic but also rests on very deep natural right for government safety and happiness protection.
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: That language was interesting again.
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: The legislative powers are incapable of annihilation, so the king cannot get rid of this right.
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: So if he abolishes his legislature it just passes back to us and we choose to take as well.
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: And now I really have a firm understanding...
• 49:21
  Speaker 0: It exists in nature!
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so King George do what you will but these legislative powers are naturally ours.
• 49:30
  Speaker 1: Absolutely So.
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: either allow us to have a Legislative Assembly that you accept or we'll do it ourselves because
• 49:38
  Speaker 0: yeah
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: It will happen naturally
• 49:40
  Speaker 0: exactly
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: okay?
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: So let's go now to the final passages.
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: We get through all the grievances and Now to end our story we have to end the Declaration of Independence here.
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: And for me, maybe one or two of the points that I always remember about this is passage.
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: Nor have we been wanting an attentions to our British brethren This idea that...that We do share culture language blood and understanding.
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: We are brothers Our British brethren.
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: Then they use the phrase co-sanguinity.
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: later Again..we share the same Bloodlines The Same Culture & History Understanding Of Law The same rights etc.
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: And then there's that passage.
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: we have reminded them are british brother and of the circumstances of our immigration settlement here in.
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: you've mentioned several times already what strikes you about that passage.
• 50:34
  Speaker 0: Right okay so first all this is, foundations of american liberties as americans.
• 50:43
  Speaker 0: In jefferson original drafts He expanded on that phrase.
• 50:48
  Speaker 0: I mean, as you indicate there it ends kind of abruptly is a we've one.
• 50:53
  Speaker 0: Reminder them of the circumstance of our immigration and certainty.
• 50:56
  Speaker 0: they too have been deaf to The voice of justice and consanguinity And A new reader might look at that.
• 51:02
  Speaker 0: think well what?
• 51:03
  Speaker 0: What are those circumstances?
• 51:05
  Speaker 0: in his first draft Jefferson did explain then and he says We came over here Without any help from the British government And at the expense of our own blood and treasure, we created these colonies.
• 51:22
  Speaker 0: That was accepted orthodoxy.
• 51:24
  Speaker 0: Historians have found that peculiar but if you go back through the literature or pamphlets on all way to the sixteen sixties in partitions from a Virginia legislature this kind of argument is there from the beginning.
• 51:37
  Speaker 0: We are the conquerors of these lands and these peoples, we expended our blood and treasure.
• 51:42
  Speaker 0: therefore we earn rights to self-government and
• 51:46
  Speaker 0: property.".
• 51:47
  Speaker 0: The problem there –and the reason it was eliminated–was because he then said... And…we then formed independent governments effectively states new countries uh..And THEN we made an alliance with a king in the British people.
• 52:05
  Speaker 0: So the empire was formed of and created a legality.
• 52:09
  Speaker 0: That's what he calls The Empire And so this is quite radical, right?
• 52:13
  Speaker 0: You're arguing that there wasn't original American independence But the American colonies were originally states totally independent agreement and then they Formed the Empire from the outside in not the other way around.
• 52:27
  Speaker 0: people and This was first argued by Richard bland back in seventeen sixty six.
• 52:33
  Speaker 0: John Dickinson had always argued against it and I go.
• 52:37
  Speaker 0: no, we the Empire is a proper empire.
• 52:41
  Speaker 0: Parliament doesn't have there.
• 52:42
  Speaker 0: We have charters that we came over And those charters are rewards for our efforts because we did expend our blood and treasure and they guarantee Freedom to tax ourselves and other freedoms within these colonies.
• 52:57
  Speaker 0: but parliament still has the right to regulate trade itself.
• 53:00
  Speaker 0: So it's very controversial, more controversial than slavery and other issues that were... ...issues but not big issues to them at the time.
• 53:08
  Speaker 0: They are to us but not then.
• 53:10
  Speaker 0: so this was a big issue.
• 53:12
  Speaker 0: That is why I had be cut.
• 53:13
  Speaker 0: But people understood what these circumstances meant And they mean we have property rights and they means self-governing rights.
• 53:23
  Speaker 0: These are foundations of those property rights come from nature originally, and the right to life.
• 53:30
  Speaker 0: The right to sustenance.
• 53:32
  Speaker 0: legislative rights are a British inheritance but they're instantiated in the colonies through the circumstances of our immigration settlement here.
• 53:41
  Speaker 0: so it's short phrase that is really important.
• 53:44
  Speaker 0: people understood what he meant.
• 53:45
  Speaker 0: It was really foundational
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: But its sort-of packed with controversy too.
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: So let me just repeat What I think i understand.
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: you tell Me if Im right or wrong.
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: So we have reminded them of the circumstances, our immigration and settlement here.
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: And then it's left vague because there is an internal debate within The Colony about... It's almost a philosophical argument going back to all this natural law theory that We've been discussing.
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: in Natural Rights.
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: Were we independent states when we disembarked off the ships?
• 54:21
  Speaker 1: And created Our first village In North America where we essentially saying, you know in the voyage we've returned to the state of nature and we embark on a new land.
• 54:33
  Speaker 1: And now we say it's all other people on our ship here.
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: We are Now In A Social Contract.
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: The Hundred Of Us That Have Arrived and Other People Are Saying No You Came As British Subjects Underneath The King.
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: that's the Controversy
• 54:51
  Speaker 0: And it's essentially, I mean... It has implications for natural law and natural rights.
• 54:55
  Speaker 0: Which ones are you invoking?
• 54:57
  Speaker 0: The right to a contract that is inviolable or Are You Creating an Original Social Contract in the First Scenario of Jeffersonian One Or Is the Dickinsonian one?
• 55:06
  Speaker 0: That A Contract Is Still It Represents Your Natural Right To Be Governed.
• 55:11
  Speaker 0: So The Argument Is Essentially Historical.
• 55:14
  Speaker 0: Did we create new societies here or did we come as British citizens, English citizens under the crown and a crown shelter?
• 55:23
  Speaker 0: So yeah.
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: Okay so as we carry on with the final sentences here what do you think it's most important that we remember as the declaration comes to an
• 55:34
  Speaker 0: end?
• 55:36
  Speaker 0: okay so I think there are
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: two
• 55:38
  Speaker 0: actually equally important things.
• 55:43
  Speaker 0: one And the one at a time is that first paragraph in The Conclusions, where it says we have petitioned the king and our repeated petitions of only been answered by repeated injury.
• 55:55
  Speaker 0: This was really important to the term because he fed into the justifications of revolution.
• 56:02
  Speaker 0: Now the grievances on their own are not quite enough To Have A Revolution!
• 56:07
  Speaker 0: The First Thirteen basically say He's violated Our Liberty In Our Pursuit Of Happiness.
• 56:15
  Speaker 0: The final five say he has violated our right to life, but even then you have to prove intention.
• 56:23
  Speaker 0: In the preamble of the decoration it says evinces a design or is this having a direct object?
• 56:31
  Speaker 0: so and that the king is intentionally imposing an absolute theory.
• 56:38
  Speaker 0: And, their real importance of our first paragraph there... ...is with petitioning.
• 56:43
  Speaker 0: so he knows that He's violating our rights to life-liberty and property in pursuit of happiness.
• 56:49
  Speaker 0: but he has ignored it and carried on saying So his acted with intent!
• 56:54
  Speaker 0: That really important It.
• 56:55
  Speaker 0: only then you can have a revolution.
• 56:57
  Speaker 0: Before that your allowed to protest or rebel but you can only revolt once your proven intention.
• 57:05
  Speaker 0: And then the second paragraph, The one we were talking about before or about circumstance of our immigration settlement here.
• 57:11
  Speaker 0: So this is important because it explains what the declaration excluded.
• 57:17
  Speaker 0: We often think that all men are created equal That the Declaration's about universal rights But its not.
• 57:25
  Speaker 0: If I go back to the first paragraph It was about One People declaring their independence from another.
• 57:30
  Speaker 0: How do those one people come into existence?
• 57:34
  Speaker 0: First of all, they have left Britain and formed new colonies with legislatures.
• 57:42
  Speaker 0: so there are peoples... I mean they're still British.
• 57:45
  Speaker 0: yeah either voluntarily through the Jeffersonian scenario or they've never ceased to be British though the Dickinsonian scenario.
• 57:53
  Speaker 0: but So they are different peoples, but there's thirteen people.
• 58:01
  Speaker 0: But then by the time of a revolution especially once you get to the king attacking or parliament attacking all economies They come together and those common circumstances of immigration settlement here We left we in every colony.
• 58:16
  Speaker 0: that applies Supposedly our own blood and treasure.
• 58:21
  Speaker 0: without British help.
• 58:22
  Speaker 0: All the colonies did that same way.
• 58:24
  Speaker 0: so this is potential layer to become one people that then gets fulfilled because of the actions of a king and they come together in the Continental Congress.
• 58:32
  Speaker 0: The first one creates the Articles Of Association, the next one declares independence in the name of One People until finally we get WeThePeopleOfTheUnitedStates.
• 58:45
  Speaker 0: But who are those people?
• 58:47
  Speaker 0: They're...the people from Northern Europe Who migrated there for liberty There.
• 58:54
  Speaker 0: obviously not Native Americans.
• 58:56
  Speaker 0: They are the victims of this process, or Americans establishing their liberty in America.
• 59:03
  Speaker 0: And they're not African-American who came over with a slave trade!
• 59:07
  Speaker 0: So this is where The Declaration implicitly expresses its exclusivities... ...the fact that it's about one people created by these circumstances of immigration settlement.
• 59:18
  Speaker 0: It's Not About All Men.
• 59:20
  Speaker 1: That's a fascinating reading of that.
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: and again, I've read so many of these passages So many times.
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: And I thought I've lingered on all of them.
• 59:28
  Speaker 1: But yeah, there is a critical passage that undermines the all men are created equal.
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: Sentiment or maybe I shouldn't use the word undermines It arms out.
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: You know we have the right to create a new society to become independent because we Removed ourselves from the social contract Europe And we create our own now here.
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: Exactly,
• 59:53
  Speaker 0: exactly.
• 59:54
  Speaker 0: and the thing is you know if you do regard The first part of that decoration Of the preamble as being historical then You know all men applies to the state-of-nature.
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 0: But when you consent a government you create yourself As people distinct from other peoples.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 0: So it's all about really, the decoration is not about all men.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 0: It's all abut creations of peoples and then rights to those people or positioning them as enemies such as Native Americans enslaved.
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 0: And that final grievance which everyone is kind of embarrassed at he has exited domestic insurrections so called this really a betrayal of the principles or decoration.
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 0: It doesn't mean to violation natural rights, but it does so because one people has an ultimate law and nature is on this side of self-protection.
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 0: So yeah we can make war with these people We can enslave them.
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: The last passage paragraph is we hold the rest of mankind enemies and war in peace friends.
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: They're taking the power to kill others, kill people not have their society or to be friendly.
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: but also they're taking that that Power as a Society too Have a monopoly on violence on outsiders slaves
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 0: Yes
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 1: native Americans
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 0: The British Army, Loyalists
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 1: all of that
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 0: stuff.
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: What a wonderful discussion we've had Steven.
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: thank you so much but before you go I ask my guests the same question what is your one major takeaway for the two hundred fifty year anniversary?
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 0: Right!
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 0: So everyone claims to believe in the decorations.
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 0: ideas about equality or men are created equal And some people really do believe that, many Americans really do.
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 0: But there are Americans who don't and who really follow more the principles of the circumstances of our immigration settlement.
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 0: here I think it's important...I'm going to make two points that if you want to criticise a certain political tendency in the United States right now, they're not about equality.
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 0: They are more about that decoration than their original decorations and its exclusivities.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 0: but what those people were also betraying some of them anyway is that the decoration was ultimately about law And people at the time, especially John Adams said this time and again.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 0: The rule of law is what matter whether that's natural law constitutional law common law legislative law...the rule of Law.
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 0: on that no one is above the law not even God.
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 0: these people believe that God was below the law!
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 0: We may not like some their ideas about the laws of nature especially with regards to slavery.
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 0: We may not like some of their ideas about constitutional law, but there's that essential principle – the rule of Law Not Of
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 0: Men.".
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 0: That I think is a thing we need right now in our current political climate!
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 0: It's always good.
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 1: Why don't you visit us at our website, americancentrum.de where you can become a member and donate?
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: The American Centrum is an nonpartisan not-for-profit institution dedicated to strengthening the transatlantic relationship.
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: Views & opinions expressed in this episode are those of guests or hosts – not Americans.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: We take our Nonpartisan mission seriously!
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: Therefore, we do not take any institutional positions on politics or policy.
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 1: Learn more about us!
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 1: Become a member and donate at americancentrum.de.
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.