For more than two hundred years, the fundamental principles set out in the Declaration of Independence have been a popular rallying cry in American politics. We see this especially with issues which seem to go to the heart of United States law, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, abortion and gay marriage. While it is tempting to look to the Founding Fathers as the ultimate constitutional authority, it is good to bear in mind that those worthy gentlemen could not possibly have conceived of many of the controversies which occupy us today. So before reaching for one’s "unalienable Rights… Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", it is wise to consider both the historical context of the Declaration, and the background and outlook of those who wrote it. In this light, the document is seen to have been given a much broader interpretation by subsequent generations than was originally intended.
Notwithstanding the commonly held perception of them as the idealist leaders of a massive popular revolution, the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence were members of an elite group taking advantage of an extraordinary political opportunity. The Founding Fathers were, without exception, wealthy men of property who, under normal circumstances, would not have espoused radical ideas. They saw themselves as the natural leaders and caretakers of their society, and had come to view British rule as a barrier to increasing that power, and therefore to the welfare of the American colonies. Persistent atrocities by the British, and a series of popular uprisings, had by 1776 mobilized enough opinion against the mother country for the landed gentry to feel confident in exploiting it.
This is not to say that the majority of people were necessarily in favor of severing links with Britain. Howard Zinn, in A People’s History of the United States, argues that the Founding Fathers acted as much to deflect popular resentment away from their own abuses of power as to further their desire for freedom to act without British influence. The central concept of the Declaration of Independence is based on the philosophy of John Locke, who outlined mankind’s fundamental democratic rights to life, liberty and property. In drafting the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson changed "property" to "happiness" as a concession to popular sentiment. This more abstract language was calculated to appeal to the public mind, and to guard against those who felt that the privileged upper classes already had too much property.
It is clear, then, that the Founding Fathers were thinking of these "unalienable Rights" as applying principally to themselves and men of their own standing. This was a natural outlook for men of that time, and they would no more have considered their application to women, slaves, Indians or the lower classes than we today would consider giving the vote to children. They could not have anticipated the social upheavals that would lead to the broader inclusion of these groups into American life.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Dread man: most impressive.
You know more about America's formation than most Americans; hell, more than most BCers!
Although we cannot know how prescient the Founding Fathers, and especially Jefferson, were, their understanding of human nature in the context of societal and governance issues, was profound.
Just those three unalienable rights embody the essence of the ideal in human existence.
So much more all-encompassing than "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité."
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Well crafted and written DD. I was not as interested in American history as I was in history overseas, but I agree with your assessment that the authors of the Declaration of Independence represented the landed gentry taking advantage of an unusual opportunity...
3 - Dave Nalle
The social/economic background of the framers doesn't much matter, because they did manage to hit on principles which transcend class and wealth. The basic principles expressed in the declaration transcend the document and the limitations of the framers and human law in general.
The document is a product of the philosophy of the time. It is because the framers were educated and widely read and had the experience of living in a relatively free society that they had been exposed to the ideas of Rousseau and Locke and Montesquieu and other contemporary philosophers.
But consider. Even more than the declaration, the works of Thomas Paine embody the ideas of the revolution including the rights to life, liberty and property, and Paine was NOT a rich man and was not even born in America. His father owned a tavern he was largely self-educated and he came to the US penniless after a bankruptcy. Yet in America his words were taken seriously and were enormously influential.
Dave
4 - moonraven
Am I missing something?
Where's the POINT of this piece?
Are you saying that there should be a NEW declaration, or a new constitution?
Just what ARE you trying to say?
This is an OPINION piece, not a wikipedia entry, according to its classification. Where is the opinion?
I already know all about the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Declaration....
5 - Dr Dreadful
MR,
Go back to the main Politics page and read the blurb...
I'll grant you that it doesn't fall squarely into the Opinion category. There are a limited number of choices for posting in the Politics section: it can be Opinion, News, Satire or Review. Opinion seemed to fit closest, and apparently Dave* agreed with me.
* Now don't start...!
6 - Nancy
It does that sometimes, Doc. No worries - we don't think you did it deliberately.
7 - Nancy
BTW - superexcellent analysis. Good job, Doc. I like getting an "outside" opinion; sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees, or if you're a US native, taking for granted certain povs as givens, when in fact they weren't at all.
8 - moonraven
Doc, You did not answer my questions.
9 - Dr Dreadful
[sigh] OK, MR. My point is that everyone invokes the nation's founding documents - the DoI, in this discussion - as support for their political arguments, and it's interesting that these arguments can be diametrically opposed - pro-life vs. pro-choice, for example - and still each make a good case with the help of the DoI.
10 - moonraven
So what?
11 - Dr Dreadful
Whatever.
12 - moonraven
It's not a question of whatever, doc; it's a question of IS THERE A PROBLEM AND IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU PERSONALLY FEEL PASSIONATELY ABOUT.
Obviously, there is not a problem and you don't feel passionately about anything to do with this topic.
You just wanted to see your nombre de guerra in print--anywhere.
13 - Nancy
Ignore her, Doc. She's got permanent PMS.
14 - Nancy
He HAS got a POV & he's expressed it. Like I told Nalle, MR - don't project your foibles onto everybody else. Not all of us are hyped to see our names on an article byline. You just like to bitch about everything & everybody for no reason. If you don't like the article, don't read it.
15 - moonraven
I kept waiting for the punchline, fatso, and it never arrived.
That's a legitimate beef.
And, advice to the ignorant: women my age do not have PMS.
But we do have sex lives--which you do not.
16 - Nancy
You're even nastier than usual today, MR; like a scorpion in a bottle. And about as effective. Calling names ... sinking kinda' low, MR; getting desperate are you? You're getting more & more like your buddy, JOM, every day: juvenile, petty, & malicious. Have a nice day.
17 - moonraven
Every day is a nice day, because I do not live in the US.
18 - Dr Dreadful
This is true.
19 - moonraven
You are living in hell and you don't even have the brains to put on the AC, doc.
20 - Dave Nalle
Some women her age have nothing but PMS.
Dave
21 - troll
...trying to decide - is that last ageist and misogynist or just one or the other
22 - Dr Dreadful
Now, now, troll - he did say "some"...
23 - moonraven
Dave has never had carnal contact with a woman. How would he know?
24 - Christopher Rose
He has kids, moonraven, so unless there's been a scientific development in Texas that the good ole boys are keeping to themselves, they were created the same way as yours.
25 - moonraven
He SAYS he has kids.
I won't be stupid enough to believe ANYTHING Dave says.
For all we know, he is an android escaped from one of the games he spends his time with when not jerking off on this site.