founding principles

Laws of Nature "The laws of nature and of nature's God" are the beginning point of the political theory of the American founding. They explain the Founders' decision to declare America's independence from England. But what does this phrase mean? First, it means that nature encompasses laws: certain obligations are prescribed for all human beings by nature--or more specifically, by the fact that all humans share a common nature. Today, some scientists claim that "nature knows no morals." For the Founders, that is what one might expect to hear from a tyrant like Hitler or Stalin, but not anyone who understands that human nature itself, rightly understood, provides objective standards of how human life should be lived. Second, "laws of nature" are laws that can be grasped by human reason. The Founders did not believe-as one often hears today-that there is a right to liberty because "who's to say what's right or wrong?" The Founders were not moral relativists. To the contrary, they boldly proclaim that they grasp certain fundamental principles or moral and political conduct. Third and finally, the "laws of nature," accessible in principle to any person anywhere in the world who thinks clearly about the nature of human beings, mean that the American founding is not based on ideas specifically tied to one people, such as "the rights of Englishmen," but on ideas that are true for all people everywhere. We will begin to see what some of these ideas or principles are in the Declaration's second paragraph. Nature's God * The Declaration of Independence contains a theological teaching because the ultimate source of our rights and duties is God. There are four references to God in the Declaration: The "laws of nature and of nature's God" entitle the United States to independence. Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Congress appeals "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." The signers, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence," pledge to each other their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The term "nature's God" refers to that which responsible for human (and the rest of) nature being what it is. It is a way of speaking of God insofar as God is knowable by human reason. In other words, our minds, unassisted by divine revelation, can figure out that there is such a thing as human nature, and that there are laws or rules that we must follow if we are to live justly and well. Reason can see that if we violate those laws, we will suffer such evils as death, slavery, or misery. A New England preacher explained the concept in this way: "The law of nature (or those rules of behavior which the Nature God has given men, . . . fit and necessary to the welfare of mankind) is the law and will of the God of nature, which all men are obliged to obey. . . . The law of nature, which is the Constitution of the God of nature, is universally obliging. It varies not with men's humors or interests, but is immutable as the relations of things." (Abraham Williams, Election Sermon, Boston 1762.) a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes Out of respect for the opinions of mankind, the Founders will state the reasons that they are declaring independence from England and founding a new nation. These reasons, as we will learn in the following sentence, begin with the fundamental principles of government. Reasons are important to explaining America in a way they are not to other nations, because America is founded on the basis of ideas rather than ancestral traditions or divine revelation. But what does it mean that the Founders respect mankind's opinions? It does not mean that they are drawing on those opinions. After all, the Declaration of Independence is a revolutionary document; it represents something brand new. Rather, this respect means that the Founders believe that any person of good will and common sense will be reasonable enough to understand the justice of the American's cause. In his letter to Henry Lee of May 8, 1823, Jefferson said that the Declaration was intended to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take." James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 14: "Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness." WE hold these Truths to be self-evident The Founders are about to state four truths that they describe as self-evident. But they know that nearly every other political power on earth denied these truths. In what sense, then, can they be called "self-evident"? The phrase "self-evident truth" has a particular meaning in the western philosophical tradition. It means a proposition whose truth is known as soon as the definitions of the terms in question are known. For example, one knows it is a self-evident truth that "a whole is equal to the sum of its parts," as soon as one understands the definitions of "whole," "sum," and "parts." For those who do not understand the definitions--for instance, using the example above, for someone who doesn't know what "sum" means-a self-evident truth does not appear true. Nonetheless, it is. they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights The Declaration's second self-evident truth follows from and explains the principle of equality: human beings are born with unalienable rights. "Unalienable" means non-transferable: people can't surrender these rights, even voluntarily. No one is born with a right to sell himself into

slavery, or to authorize another person to kill him. But what is a "right"? A right is a claim that a person may rightfully make against someone who would deprive him of what is his own. If a person owns clothes or books, he has a "right" to them. If someone takes them away, the original owner has a legitimate claim to get them back. We should note also that a right from one point of view is a duty from another. For every person with a right, there are an indefinite number of persons who have a duty to respect that right. Using the example above, the person who took the clothes or books has a duty to return them--or rather he has a duty not to take them in the first place. People aren't born with clothes and books, of course. They come to own such property either by receiving it as a gift--for instance, from parents or friends--or by working to earn it. But people are born with rights to earn and keep such property. These rights, also called natural rights, are rightful claims to what one owns by birth, or by way of one's nature as a human being. The Declaration goes on specifically to mention three of them. among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness The Declaration specifically mentions three rights which human beings possess by birth or by nature-life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one may rightfully deny us these things. Nor, since they are "unalienable," may we rightfully surrender them. It is worth remarking that the Declaration does not proclaim a right to happiness itself. Happiness is not something we have by nature. Rather we are born with minds and talents that we may use to pursue happiness. The Declaration says that these three rights are "among" our natural rights. We have others in addition. Among the most important of these are the rights of conscience and property. These are among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution's first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The right of conscience means religious freedom. As explained in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776: "religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." Each of us has a right to worship God in his own way and time. As for property rights, they were at the heart of the dispute which led to the American Revolution. When Americans at the time listed the rights of man, they often said "life, liberty, and property." Boston's 1772 "Rights of the Colonists" were typical: "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property." As with happiness, this is not a right to property itself, but a right to use one's talents to acquire property, and to use it as one sees fit, as long as one does not injure oneself or others. to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men The Declaration's third self-evident truth answers the question, why do men establish government? The answer: to secure natural rights, or the rights people are born with. The Declaration implies that these rights are not secure outside of government. Outside of government, people are in what the Founders called "the state of nature." They have natural rights, but when men live without government, those rights are jeopardized. As James Madison explained in Federalist no. 51, in the state of nature, "the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." In such a state, even the decent may be tempted to act according to their selfish passions rather than their reason and duty. As James Madison put it in the same number of The Federalist, men are not angels-that is, they are not simply rational. The state of nature is characterized not by life, liberty, and happiness, but rather by violent death, slavery, and misery. Because of this-and so that they can enjoy their rights in peace-people join to form governments. When people set up a government, they must give up some of the power they had in the state of nature. For example, one gives up the right to punish wrongdoers and gives that right to government. In this sense, one surrenders some of the natural right to liberty. But in another sense, the right to liberty is unalienable, meaning that one never gives it up at all. That is, no one rightfully assigns to a government absolute authority over his freedom of action, and no one rightfully gives up his ultimate right to revolt against a tyrannical government. One surrenders liberty conditionally: we give some of it to government, on the condition that government secures our rights. For instance, people may not rightfully give government the right to kill or enslave them or confiscate their property (except as restitution for injuries committed). But people accept some restraints on the liberty they enjoyed in the natural state for the sake of more secure liberty. For instance, they give a portion of their property for the greater protection of the right of acquisition (e.g., when taxes go to pay for judges and for national defense). deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed The second question addressed by the Declaration's third self-evident truth is, how should government operate? The answer: by the consent of the governed. Consent means agreement or choice. The government must, in some way, have our agreement, or else it has no "just powers" over us. Consent has two forms: consent in establishing government and consent in operating government. The first-also called the "social compact "-was well defined in the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780 as an association "by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." After the people join together to form a government, they must also give their consent, upon a regular basis, to its operations. This second form of consent arises from the fact that the right to liberty is unalienable. One cannot rightly consent to a government that rules without going back to the people for their ongoing consent. The right to vote and freedom of speech are means necessary to ensure this second form of consent. Thus the Declaration speaks later of a people's "right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only." It denounces the king of Britain for keeping among us "standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures," and for "imposing taxes on us without our consent." The Founders generally used expressions like "republican" or "popular" government for government by consent. "Democracy" is the term

preferred today. The Declaration's third self-evident truth means that what we call democracy is the only fully legitimate form of government. As Jefferson wrote: "the republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind." whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it The Declaration's fourth and final self-evident truth is that when a government destroys rather than secures its citizens' unalienable rights, those citizens have a right to revolution. This follows logically from the preceding principles. Government exists to protect rights; if it isn't doing this, the people should get rid of it and set up a new one. Two other rights arise from the right to revolution. These rights are unstated in the Declaration but were endorsed by the entire founding generation: the right to keep and bear arms and the right to be governed, in local affairs, by local governments. James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes The right to revolution does not mean that it is right or good to overthrow any government for any cause. First and most obviously, it would be foolish and wrong to overthrow a government that was performing its proper duty--securing the rights of its citizens. That is true even if the government is not entirely based on the consent of the governed. Second, prudence--or sound judgment of particular circumstances-tells us that people should think long and hard before trying to overthrow any government, however evil. A revolution is a two-edged sword. It throws men back into the state of nature, where extreme passions will be released and violence may become uncontrolled. Like a dangerous drug, it may exacerbate the disease it is designed to cure. Revolution should only be prescribed to the worst sorts of diseases, and only in conditions where the prospect for success is good. For this reason, the Declaration's teaching does not mean that every country everywhere in the world should overthrow its government if it is not democratic. Democracy is the form of government that conforms best to the principles of just government, but there may be peoples who are currently incapable of self-government, because they have been corrupted by despotism, or for other reasons. During the French Revolution of the 1790s, Gouverneur Morris, a leading author of the U.S. Constitution, predicted that the French, who at that time were in Morris's judgment very deficient in moral self-restraint, would end up not with freedom but with a despotism worse than the one they replaced. The ensuing Terror, and the dictatorship of Napoleon, proved Morris correct. History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny Having laid out the principles of just government, the Declaration turns to the facts of the King of England's government of America. The King is said to aim at tyranny. This means that there is a pattern of events showing that the king has repeatedly denied the right of the American colonies to govern themselves through their own elected legislatures, and that he has repeatedly failed to secure their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, in each one of the charges that follow, there is an implicit or explicit claim that the king has either violated the purpose of government ("to secure these rights"), or the principle of government by consent. In the first part of the list, on domestic politics, the most obvious theme is violation of the consent principle. The king has repeatedly interfered with the colonists' right to govern themselves through their elected representatives, by closing down or harassing or vetoing the actions of American legislative bodies, by doing things unauthorized by America's legislatures, and above all by imposing Parliament's laws and taxes on the Americans without their consent. In this list of domestic grievances, the specific character of the laws and policies that the king has blocked or imposed is also mentioned. This is to show that it is not only consent, but the security of the Americans' rights to life and liberty, that the king has violated. Toward the end of the list, the emphasis shifts to foreign policy, and the king's attacks on the lives and property of the colonists through his making war on America. The length of the list of "injuries and usurpations" which follows is meant to demonstrate that the King has acted tyrannically, not just once or twice, but repeatedly and over a long period. His more recent actions are particularly destructive of American rights. This explains why the Americans are justified in resorting to revolution. If his misbehavior had been only occasional, prudence would have dictated that the revolution not be undertaken. But the King's actions can only be recognized as tyrannical in light of the self-evident truths listed previously. They are the ultimate justification for the American Revolution and the American founding. our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor A common twentieth-century criticism of the founding is that it enshrines the principle of self-interest at the heart of the regime. The Declaration speaks of rights, we are told, but it does not seem to have much to say about duties. If rights come first, and if the first right is the right to life, it seems that our obligations to others are contingent on our rights. In other words, what seems to come first in the Declaration is selfishness, looking out for one's own life, liberty, and happiness. Contrary to this view, the Founders emphatically placed their honor and duty ahead of their private rights. The Declaration says, in its second paragraph, that when a people is subjected to a long train of abuses aiming at absolute despotism, "it is their right, it is their duty," to change the government. This duty is higher than one's own personal survival or selfish interest. It may in fact require the sacrifice of one's own life. That is why the Declaration concludes with these noble words: "We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Honor and duty are superior to rights and self-interest. The Founders' clearest statement of this conviction occurs in the "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms," co-authored by Jefferson and John Dickinson, and approved by the Continental Congress in 1775: "We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we have received from our gallant ancestors. . . . We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. . . . [We are] with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves." If the Founders really believed that selfish interest was the foundation of human rights, they would never have believed that slavery and dishonor are worse even than death.

historical context

one People The Declaration refers to the people of the United States of America as "one people." This implies that the new United States is a single country. The same is implied by the phrase "our constitution" (singular, not plural) in line 38. However, the conclusion of the Declaration asserts that we are "free and independent states" (plural). The question of whether America was one people, or a baker's dozen of separate sovereignties, was a divisive issue in American politics until the Civil War. From the Declaration alone we may conclude that the several states are independent of each other in certain respects, and independent of Britain in all. The states are "united" into "one people," whose Declaration established a single nation, represented by a single Congress. The "United States" is/are sovereign in the realm of their internal domestic affairs, but a single political entity in its/their dealings with the outside world. dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another Whether the American people were in truth "one people" was a matter of great controversy between them and the British. In the British view, the Americans were British subjects. They did not form one people, distinct from the people of the kingdom of Great Britain. The Declaration implies that the Americans had long been, or perhaps had always been, a separate people from the British. The long political union between Britain and the colonies, in the American view, had resulted from the consent of the Americans' colonial legislatures. Because the British government had violated the principles of just government, it was now time to separate. a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation The Declaration refers to the "causes which impel [the Americans] to the Separation." In the Preamble, it states that it had become necessary for the American people to "dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another [people]." Thus, the Americans were forced to separate themselves from England; that is, they were forced to revolt against the British government, because of its repeated violation of the equality principle, which demands that government secure the unalienable rights of the governed on the basis of the consent of the governed. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident The reader may wonder who "WE" are who hold these truths. One obvious answer is "WE, therefore, the representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, assembled" (line 65). Since the Representatives of the United States of America have been duly elected by the American people, it is not only they who hold these truths, but the people of the United States, as well. The History of the present King of Great-Britain In referring to "the history of the present King," Jefferson is of course referring to King George III, whose reign began in 1760. It was during his reign that the disagreements and tensions between the Americans and the British government became acute. Prior to his reign, American relations with the British were often strained, but never to the point of an open break. There had been long quarrels between the American colonial legislatures, elected by the people, and officials appointed by the king, over policy and taxes. But now, as the Declaration charted, King George's actions displayed the intention of establishing "an absolute Tyranny over these States." This was strong language indeed, and it reflected the Americans' conviction that the British government was no longer content to allow the colonies to govern themselves, in most of their affairs, through assemblies elected in America. Tyranny may be defined, from the point of view of the Declaration, as a form of government that violates the principles of the consent of the governed and securing the unalienable rights of the people, and so may be rightfully resisted. The point of the long list of the charges against the King was to demonstrate to all the world that King George was a tyrant. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World Note the archaic use of "candid," in this case meaning "unbiased." To what does "this" refer? To the preceding lines, 16-19; but specifically, "this" refers to lines 19-20: "The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." That is, King George III ("the present King of Great-Britain) has repeatedly shown, in various ways to be enumerated in what follows in the text of the Declaration, that he intends to establish an absolute tyranny over "these States." Note that Jefferson does not refer to them as "colonies" but as "states." Note also the word "usurpation." To usurp is to seize or assume something wrongfully--in this case, political power. This should be kept in mind when reading the charges against the King. One should continually ask, Why was it wrong for King George to do this or that? Jefferson must demonstrate that King George has shown that he intends to establish a tyranny over the states to justify the assertion in the Preamble that it has now become necessary for the people of America to separate themselves from Great Britain. In each case, the grievance must show that the king's actions violate the unalienable rights of humanity, or the principle that government must be by consent, or both. HE has refused his Assent to Laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. This charge refers to the fact that several of the colonies had been obliged from their establishment to submit their laws to the King for his approval. This power, the Declaration implies, was never consistent with the fundamental principle of just government: consent. And by adding "laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good," Jefferson indicates that the laws that were vetoed were intended to accomplish the fundamental purpose of government stated in the preamble, "to secure these rights." One important example of this charge was King George's refusal to comply with various attempts by the Colonies to abolish the slave trade, as Jefferson explicitly stated in his original draft of the declaration. [LINK TO IT] The King, wishing to protect this profitable British trade, defeated all attempts by the Colonies to

curtail or abolish it. HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. This refers to the policy of requiring the colonial governors or chief executives within each colony to suspend certain kinds of laws passed by the Colonial assemblies until the King should give his assent to them. Sometimes these laws would be neglected by the King for years. Jefferson wrote in his "Summary View of the Rights of British America" (1774): "With equal inattention to the necessities of his people here has his majesty permitted our laws to lie neglected in England for years, neither confirming them by his assent, nor annulling them by his negative." HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. This charge refers to a grievance that arose because of the British government's fear that the popular assemblies of the colonies were growing too large and powerful as new communities were formed and additional representatives were elected to the assemblies of the colonies. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and New York passed laws allowing for the establishment of new communities with elected representatives to their respective popular assemblies, all of which were disallowed by King George. Virginia was also constrained by the same policy. The colonists insisted that representation in their assemblies was their right, because government must be by consent of the governed. The British maintained that representation was a privilege granted by the King. HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures. This refers to situations that arose in Massachusetts and Virginia, when the colonial governors declared that the meeting sites of the assemblies should be moved for reasons of safety. In both cases, the new sites were at some distance from the places where the public records were kept; and the members of the assemblies charged that moving the sites of their meetings interfered with the public business and prevented them from access to information necessary to conduct it. HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his Invasions on the rights of the People. This charge refers to edicts issued occasionally by the King that the representative bodies of the colonies be dissolved for various reasons. For example, in 1768, the representative assembly of Massachusetts issued a letter for circulation charging the King and Parliament with infringing the rights of Americans. After this letter had come to the attention of the British government, Governor Bernard of Massachusetts was ordered to dissolve the assembly unless the letter were rescinded. Letters were also sent to the governors of other colonies ordering them to prevail upon the members of their respective assemblies to ignore the letter. When the Massachusetts House voted not to rescind the letter, the Governor ordered it dissolved. HE has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; theState remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within. This charge goes to the heart of one of the fundamental disagreements between the American colonists and the British government. Upon those occasions when their representative assemblies were dissolved, the people of the various colonies often formed special conventions for the purpose of passing laws and electing representatives to the Continental Congress. The people understood that their right of representation arises from their equal liberty with all other human beings; that equal liberty requires that no one has the right to rule another without that other's consent. That means that the right of representation in the lawmaking body, the legislature, depended, not upon the caprice of their governors, but originated with the people. If the King disbanded their legislatures, for whatever reason, the colonists believed that the right of self-government reverted to the people, and that they would then be justified in doing whatever they deemed necessary to reestablish representative government, even to the point of calling special conventions to govern them. The reference to "Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within," recalls the Founders' understanding that life, liberty, and property are endangered when men live outside of government--in a "state of nature." In the state of nature, human beings have the right to form governments to protect themselves, in whatever manner they deem best. HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migration hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of lands. This charge relates to the King's opposition to various colonial laws passed for the purpose of encouraging immigration to America. The British government feared that such encouragement would reduce the population of England and lure away workers who would otherwise be employed in its domestic industries. In addition, the King issued orders that made it more difficult to obtain land by royal grant. Americans believed that one part of the unalienable right to liberty was the liberty to make use of property to provide for oneself and one's family. To that end, government should make unused land available to the people by homestead or auction, so that it can be put to use by their labor. The King, however, treated all land in America as his, to be granted or to be withheld from others at his pleasure, even though neither he nor his officers had expended any labor upon it. HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. This charge pertains to a situation in North Carolina that originated from an act of the English government disallowing a law passed by the North Carolina legislature for establishing courts of justice and regulating their proceedings. The English objected to this law on the grounds that the establishment of courts of justice was an action reserved to the sovereign power, which belonged solely to the King. As a result, North Carolina was compelled to do without courts of law for a long time. Similar situations existed in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. These were all violations of the principle that just government derives from the consent of the governed, and that government exists to

secure rights. Without a judiciary to punish criminals and to enable injured individuals to sue the injurer for redress, life, liberty, and property will be insecure. HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. This charge refers to the need to separate the judiciary from the executive, in order to make government abuse of power less likely. Otherwise the people's unalienable rights would be endangered. It should be compared with Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in Office." In 1761 the English government declared that the tenure of judges in colonial courts should be at the discretion of the King. This led to a crisis in New York in that same year, when the colony's judges refused to carry out their duties unless their commissions under the King were for continuance in office during good behavior. The New York legislature passed a law stipulating such tenure. When the British government learned of this law, it sent instructions to the colonial governors forbidding them from assenting to any act passed by their legislatures pertaining to the tenure of judges. HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. This charge refers to additional customs officials and courts of admiralty--that is, military and not civil courts--established by the British government in the colonies, in an effort to enforce trade laws and prevent smuggling. Since none of these officials were approved by the colonial legislatures, they were illegitimate. HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. This practice was a violation of the principle that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Moreover, standing armies had long been regarded, in both England and America, as a danger that required the closest supervision of the people. In A Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson wrote that if the King did indeed have the right to keep standing armies in the colonies during times of peace without America's consent, such a right "might swallow up all our other rights whenever he should think proper." At the end of the Seven Years' War with France, English troops were not withdrawn from the colonies. Indeed, the Quartering Act, passed by the British government in 1765, made the colonies liable for supporting the troops. HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. This refers to the appointment in 1774 of General Thomas Gage, commander in chief of the British troops in America, as governor of Massachusetts. On June 12, 1775, General Gage declared that the colonists of Massachusetts were "rebels and traitors," and that he was, by his own authority, suspending the common law of Massachusetts and ordering the use of martial law. This charge should be compared with the US Constitution, which makes the president, elected by the people, commander in chief of the armed forces. That is in accordance with the principle that elected officials, not unelected appointees such as generals, should control the military. HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: This line introduces a recitation of certain acts of Parliament regarded as unconstitutional exercises of authority by the Americans. "HE has combined with others" means that King George has given his assent to these acts of "pretended Legislation," that is, he has refused to exercise his veto on them. The "others" referred to here are the members of Parliament. This entire section rests upon a principal issue for the colonists: To what extent did the British Parliament have the authority to legislate for the American colonists? As one reads these charges, one should keep in mind the principle stated at the beginning of the Declaration, that all legitimate political power derives from the consent of the governed. This principle is implicit in the phrase "foreign to our Constitution." Jefferson refers to the American understanding of the British constitution (see his Summary View), which rests upon the principle of consent. "Our constitution," in this view, rightfully grants authority to the colonial legislatures to make laws for their respective colonies. The Founders believed that the colonists in each of the colonies had voluntarily consented to be governed by their own elected representatives; The colonies acknowledged King George as their "chief executive," and were in this sense British citizens. However, the colonists had not consented to be governed by the British Parliament, and it therefore had no authority over them. Accordingly, when King George gave his consent to the acts of "pretended Legislation" of Parliament, he had given the colonists the justification for dissolving their allegiance to him, and thus for declaring their independence. FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province and FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments These lines refer to what came to be called "The Intolerable Acts," passed by Parliament partly in response to the "Boston Tea Party" (December 16, 1773). In 1774, the British government decided that it was not possible to single out for punishment the participants in the Tea Party. Instead, a series of punitive actions was taken against the town of Boston and the entire colony of Massachusetts Bay. There were five acts: 1) The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston beginning June 1, 1774, until the East India Company had been repaid for the losses it had suffered as a result of the Tea Party; this act in effect declared a military blockade of Boston. 2) The Administration of Justice Act empowered the Massachusetts governor to transfer either to Britain or to another colony for trial any official or soldier accused of a capital crime committed in the line of duty who could not expect a fair trial in Massachusetts. 3) The Massachusetts Government Act nullified and altered the Massachusetts Charter in several ways, by stipulating, among other things, that the Council would thenceforth be appointed by the Crown rather than elected by the House of Representatives, and that town meetings could not be held without the prior written approval of the governor.

4) The Quartering Act authorized every colonial governor under certain conditions to lodge troops in private establishments; this act showed that the British government intended to act firmly, very likely with force, to suppress American self-government. 5) The Quebec Act reversed previous colonial policy by depriving inhabitants of Quebec of representation in government; this act also declared that the Roman Catholic religion was to be given the support of government in the exercise of its "accustomed dues and rights," meaning that Catholics would be taxed to support the Catholic clergy. Americans viewed this act as a cynical British attempt to buy the loyalty of Catholic priests so that they would not protest its abolition of republican government in Canada. A particularly alarming feature of the Quebec Act was that it extended the territory of Quebec far southward, to include the vast region that eventually became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. It appeared that the British plan was to abolish free government within the colonies, starting with Canada, and to prevent the westward expansion of the colonies by peopling the western region with docile Catholics who would willingly submit to despotic government of Britain and their priests. FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. The Stamp Tax of the early 1760s was the first major cause of the quarrel between the Americans and the British. It occasioned the first strong articulation of the principles of the Declaration by James Otis in 1764, entitled "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved." The principle "no taxation without representation" was soon extended to the whole conduct of government. Not just taxes, but all acts of government must be by "the consent of the governed." FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury. The Sugar Act of April 5, 1764, entrusted military courts--the courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty--with enforcing all acts of the British Parliament pertaining to commerce and related revenues. In 1768, the British government, partly in an effort to suppress smuggling, increased the number of these courts. All trials by such courts were conducted without juries. Americans regarded trial by jury as a necessary protection to the rights of individuals against the abuse of power by government. It meant that before the coercive power of government could be brought to bear against a man, it had to be approved by a body of men, most likely his neighbors, who are not government employees. FOR transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses: British policy allowed Americans to be transported to England at the desire of either prosecutor or defendant in trials of persons charged with having committed murder in the course of suppressing a riot or enforcing revenue laws. Americans charged with crime subject to trial in the military courts could also be transported far from the scene of the actual crime to stand trial. And, Americans could also themselves be shipped to England to stand trial for certain crimes against the King's property, for example His Majesty's ships or other military equipment. This policy was so obnoxious to the Americans that the first Continental Congress on October 21, 1774, adopted a resolution declaring "That the seizing, or attempting to seize, any person in America, in order to transport such person beyond the sea, for trial of offenses, committed within the body of a county in America, being against law, will justify, and ought to meet with resistance and reprisal." FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. This charge quotes parliament's repeal of the stamp tax in 1766; although the tax was repealed, parliament asserted its authority to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." This provision was at the root of British policy after 1765, and it stated with absolute clarity that in principle the British government could simply do as it pleased with the American people, as if that people were its slaves. This was the heart of what the colonists objected to. According to the Declaration, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; according to the British, governments may justly govern in defiance of the consent of the governed. The charge also refers to an act of the British Parliament in 1767 punishing the colony of New York for failing to provide for the maintenance of British troops stationed there. Parliament declared that until the New York legislature complied with the law requiring such provision, it was "suspended." He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. Having concluded the list of complaints whereby Britain denied Americans their right of self-government, the Declaration turns to the assault of the British government on the Americans' lives, liberties, or properties, contrary to the purpose of government, which is "to secure these rights." This line refers in particular to a series of actions taken by George III, culminating in his approval on December 22, 1775, and again on February 27, 1776 of an act of Parliament which declared the colonies out of the King's protection. The British government issued this declaration because of what it viewed as the intolerable degree of unruliness of the colonists. HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. This charge points to the fact that King George had declared war on the Americans. It refers specifically to the burning by British troops of several American towns. The British considered that the Americans were in open rebellion against their lawful rulers. But for the Americans, their "lawful rulers" were the very colonial legislatures and town meetings that were declared closed by British decress and under attack by British troops. HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most bar barous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation. This refers to the hiring by King George of foreign mercenary troops to fight against the colonists. HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

In December, 1775, Parliament passed a law authorizing the British navy to capture the ships and cargoes of other countries trading with the American colonies, as though they were enemies of Great Britain. In addition, the law authorized that anyone captured in the taking of these ships was to be compelled to fight for the British, even though this meant that such persons would have to fight against their own countrymen. HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. The British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if "any Injury or insult were offered to himself" he would "declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes." The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings. General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists. In Jefferson's original version of the Declaration, this charge was followed by a long passage condemning King George for having failed to suppress the slave trade to America. According to Jefferson's autobiography, Congress struck the passage from the final version of the Declaration in deference to South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the slave trade with Africa. This is the stricken passage: "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." One should note that Jefferson states that slavery violates the "most sacred rights of human nature," and is totally unworthy of the "Christian king of Great Britain." Also, the use of the word "MEN," written in capital letters, is important. Some Americans today believe that the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" applies only to males, despite the common usage in Jefferson's time of "man" to mean both "human being" and "male." Accordingly, they think that Jefferson and the rest of the Founders meant to exclude women and blacks from the political equality that is one of America's founding principles. However, when Jefferson refers to a "market where MEN are bought and sold," it seems reasonable to assume that he was using "men" in its generic sense, "human being"; for he obviously knew that both women and men were enslaved.