Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

 

"It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded… merely as curiosities in glass cases."

 

So spoke Harry Truman about the Declaration of Independence. He also called it a “supreme expression of our profound belief.” How did this world-shattering document come about? From the pen of one man, Thomas Jefferson. On June 11, 1776, the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence. The committee was composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman.

One of these five was a renowned writer. That person did not write the Declaration of Independence. Often, we forget that Benjamin Franklin was a bestselling author. For nearly thirty years, only the Bible outsold Poor Richard’s Almanac; his Autobiography has never been out of print, and his articles made the Pennsylvania Gazette the most successful newspaper in the colonies. Franklin, however, declined to draft the declaration, purportedly due to poor health, so the committee asked the thirty-three-year-old Thomas Jefferson to draft it.

In less than three weeks, Jefferson presented the committee with this historic document. For the most part, the committee accepted the Declaration as drafted, except that Franklin made some subtle but important revisions. For example, Jefferson had written “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable,” which Franklin revised to “self-evident.” Some have suggested that Franklin was pushing the text toward the analytic empiricism of David Hume, but it’s more likely that the master editor was wordsmithing for a more graceful rhythm to the words.

On June 28th, the Committee of Five reported out the declaration to Congress, and they began arguing over every sentence, making thirty-nine revisions. Thankfully, Congress left the preamble alone, so altering the list of grievances did not dilute the earth-shattering ideas in the first two paragraphs. Although Jefferson never uttered a word of complaint, he fumed at the incessant meddling.

Jefferson reported afterward that Franklin admitted he avoided drafting papers for committee review. You can almost hear the seventy-year-old patriarch chuckling as he gives this advice to the young Virginian. According to Jefferson, Franklin told him the following story.

"When I was a journeyman printer, one of my companions, an apprentice hatter, having served out his time, was about to open shop for himself. His first concern was to have a handsome signboard, with a proper inscription. He composed it in these words, ‘John Thompson, Hatter, makes and sells hats for ready money,’ with a figure of a hat subjoined. But thought he would submit it to his friends for their amendments. The first he showed it to thought the word ‘Hatter’ tautologous, because followed by the words ‘makes hats,’ which showed he was a hatter. It was struck out. The next observed that the word ‘makes’ might as well be omitted, because his customers would not care who made the hats. If good and to their mind, they would buy them, by whomsoever made. He struck it out. A third said he thought the words for ready money were useless, as it was not the custom of the place to sell on credit. Everyone who purchased expected to pay. They were parted with, and the inscription now stood, ‘John Thompson sells hats.’ ‘Sells hats!’ says the next friend. ‘Why, nobody will expect you to give them away. What then is the use of that word?’ It was stricken out, and ‘hats’ followed it as there was one painted on the board. So, the inscription was reduced ultimately to ‘John Thompson,’ with the figure of a hat subjoined."

A few have criticized the Declaration for failing to present new concepts. Five centuries after Magna Carta (1215), Englishmen had gradually gained individual rights, and by the late eighteenth century were exercising some self-government. The King and nobility still wielded substantial power, but Parliament -- especially the elected House of Commons -- had gained authority. Meanwhile, toward the end of the period, Enlightenment thinking began to influence those outside the aristocracy. Enlightenment thinkers challenged religious, governmental, and social norms, arguing that mankind not only possessed the capacity for self-government but had it as a natural right.

The Enlightenment turned the world upside down. Instead of the divine right of kings, individuals were endowed with God-given rights. The Founders, thoroughly schooled in this doctrine, knew their words were not breaking new ground but were doing something far more powerful: putting those revolutionary concepts into practice.

This understanding was shared by the committee. In 1822, John Adams answered a query about the Declaration of Independence:

"As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams."

Jefferson himself told Henry Lee:

"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but 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."

The Declaration of Independence never claimed to plow new ground, but it did an exceptional job of articulating the Enlightenment vision. Or, in Jefferson’s words, made the Enlightenment ideas plain and firm. Some claim the best-known sentence in the English language is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Thomas Jefferson rightly deserves enormous recognition and praise for writing an eloquent and powerful expression of this revolutionary concept, but it was an idea more universal than one man -- or even one generation.

(This article was originally published in the American Thinker.)

The American Exceptionalism Series
Read all about it!

Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood

 

Lord Charnwood published Abraham Lincoln in 1916. In order to get a clearer perspective of the Civil War, it helps to read books from multiple viewpoints. Lord Charnwood wrote only fifty years after the war, bringing an almost contemporaneous perspective to his depictions. His biography has the advantage of proximity but with enough time elapsed to dampen the passions of the moment. More important, as an English depiction, it is a simultaneously a distant point of view. It is a distance of more than nautical miles. Lord Charnwood also brings the bias of English nobility to his descriptions. This is exceptionally important in gaining an understanding of the diplomatic imperative for both sides. The Confederacy desperately sought European recognition of their legitimacy, while Lincoln did everything in his power to deny international recognition and suppress arms and funding from abroad. Lincoln’s success was arguably pivotal to eventually making victory possible.

 Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood can be a tough read. A simple, declarative sentence is beyond the baron. This is partly due to the style of the times and partly the way of academics who feel a need to qualify every utterance. Once the reader adjusts to the wordily writing, nuggets of rare perspective make the effort well worthwhile. For example, Thomas Jefferson is not one of my favorite Founders and Lord Charnwood seems to have shared some of my reservations. He also makes other political observations that an American might be reluctant to express.

If you have an interest in the mid-nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln by Lord Charnwood can be an enlightening read.

Thomas Jefferson, Rebel with a Cause

Thomas Jefferson was a planter, architect, revolutionary, author, agricultural scientist, inventor, and politician. He did other things in his spare time. His tombstone is inscribed, “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia.”  The inscription says nothing about a presidency where he reduced spending, cut taxes, kept us out of war, and doubled the land mass of the country. He wrote the epitaph himself and included the accomplishments that he took the most pride in. 

Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention, but the Declaration of Independence is possibly the most hopeful and eloquent statement of the Founding Principles. On June 11, 1776, the second Continental Congress appointed a committee to write a declaration of independence. Besides Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman were selected. One of these five was a renowned author. Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac and his newspaper articles in the Pennsylvania Gazette had made him the best-known writer in North America. But Franklin declined to draft the declaration, supposedly due to poor health, so the committee asked the thirty-three-year-old Thomas Jefferson to draft the document.

The Atlantic Joins the Chorus: Constitution Defunct

Alex Seitz-Wald

“America, we've got some bad news: Our Constitution isn't going to make it.” That is the lead sentence in The Atlantic article: “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here's How to Write It,” by  Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon's political reporter. Seitz-Wald quotes none other than Thomas Jefferson to justify his claim that “it's time to think about moving on.” Jefferson had famously written that Constitutions should be rewritten every nineteen years. Jefferson certainly qualifies as a founding father, but he had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was in Paris in the summer of 1787 and returned miffed that he had been left out. None of the actual delegates wanted to repeat the convention experience, and all believed they had written a constitution for what George Mason called “millions yet unborn.”

Seitz-Wald  writes, “If men (and, finally, women) as wise as Jefferson and Madison set about the task of writing a constitution in 2013, it would look little like the one we have now.” I suspect those wise men and women would all be required to think in lockstep with Mr. Seitz-Wald.  Again, not true of the 1787 delegates who possessed myriad ideas and perspectives.

Time Magazine: “Does It Still Matter?”

“Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. ... If it is, then we have no Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

“Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so?” James Madison

The cover of the 10th Annual Time Magazine History Issue from a couple years ago shows the Constitution being shredded under the title, “Does it still matter?”

Richard Stengel, Time’s managing Editor, opens his essay with these words, “Here are a few things the framers did not know about. World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga."

The Founders on Limited Government

Governments govern … which means they exercise power.

James Madison wrote, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” 

Fear of an overly powerful government was a basic principle of the Founders. They firmly believed liberty could not exist with unrestrained government.  Many modern Americans find this belief odd or quaint. After all, a powerful government is needed to right all the wrongs in this world. And there are so many wrongs. Certainly benevolent rule is preferable to wrongs perpetuated on innocent people. Except all-powerful government has been the norm throughout history … and people have been duped, subjugated, robbed, imprisoned, and even murdered by governments.

The Founders weren’t paranoid; they came by their fear of power through personal experience and their study of history. They believed governments oppress and liberty depended on decentralized authority and potent restraints on the abuse of power.

To prevent the government from becoming overly powerful, the Founders used a number of techniques:

• Enumerated powers
• Three branches of government with power balanced between them
• Each branch was given checks on the exercise of power by the other branches
• A federal system with the states acting as a check on the national system
• Different terms of office for elected and appointed officials
• Limited taxing authority (Superseded by the 16th Amendment)
• A list of things the government could not do ... commonly called the Bill of Rights

The Founders on Excessive Government Power

The Founders distrusted overly strong governments.  That’s why they engineered a limited republic. Today, Americans seem to turn to their government to validate and protect real and presumed rights, and increasingly rely on government to guarantee the substance of life.  Many modern Americans embrace national authority and fight to enlarge governmental powers.  The Founders would be appalled.

What would the Founders think about growing government power? Here is what they said in their own words.

In our governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done. – James Madison

Most Americans confuse the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

The Constitution means different things to different people. While there has been resurgence in the interest and study of the Constitution, most Americans remain ill-informed. Last Constitution Day, the James Madison’s Montpelier’s Center for the Constitution held a celebration that attracted nearly 300 people. Those who attended were asked questions that had already been answered in a national poll. Here are some of the results from the multiple choice quiz:

Only 35% of the general population identified “We the People” as the first words of the Constitution. 85% of attendees selected this answer. 

78% of attendees knew that James Madison was the “father of the Constitution.” In the national poll, only 20% answered correctly and 50% thought Thomas Jefferson fathered our Constitution. 

62% of attendees correctly identified 1787 as the year the Constitution was written. 55% of the national poll respondents thought the Constitution was written in 1776, and only 13% knew the correct answer.

The Founders on the Economy

Many think the Founding Fathers were a bunch of old-fogies who lived way before iProducts, and have little to contribute in handling modern economic issues. Those people would be wrong. The post-war economy under the Articles of Confederation was in a tailspin. Alexander Hamilton under the leadership of George Washington saved this nation from economic collapse. (See The Man who saved America from financial ruin.)

What would the Founders think about our current economic problems? Here is what they said in their own words.

In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. — James Madison, Federal Convention, June 26, 1787

Commentary—Our Healthcare Quagmire

“It is a duty certainly to give our sparings to those who want; but to see also that they are faithfully distributed, and duly apportioned to the respective wants of those receivers.” Thomas Jefferson

There has never been a time in this country where the destitute were denied basic medical care. Doctors made allowances in their billing, and the poor could find hospital care when needed. Prior to 1986 that hospital might not be close by or provisioned with the best doctors and equipment. In those bad ol’ days, the poor were treated at county hospitals. This changed with passage of The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) as part of a larger bill called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, something many of us are familiar with by the name COBRA. (Some politician once muttered that Americans should be fearful of any bill that contained the word Omnibus.)

EMTALA mandated that hospitals provide emergency service to anyone who showed up at their door, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. Any hospital that had ever billed Medicare or Medicaid was required to comply. (Government-run Veteran Hospitals were excluded, of course.) There were no provisions in the bill for any payments to hospitals for these services.

Commentary—A Truly Ugly Precedent

“It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” Thomas Jefferson

It’s actually very seldom that a Constitutional issue is pure black and white. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), was one of those rare cases. In an attempt to stem home and farm foreclosures, Minnesota passed a law which allowed a mortgagor to pay court determined rent that was set well below the contractual mortgage amount. The mortgage holder could take no foreclosure action while the rent was being paid.

The Constitution reads, “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, foreclosures were rampant, and several states had passed laws that impaired contracts by forcing debtors to accept purposely inflated state-generated paper money as legal tender. The result of these laws put a stranglehold on credit markets, deepening difficult economic times. The Framers didn't want this to happen again. Their intent—and the wording could not be clearer—was to preclude the exact type of action that was taken by Minnesota.

The Founders on the Economy

Many think the Founding Fathers were a bunch of old-fogies that lived way before iProducts, and have little to contribute in handling modern economic issues. Those people would be wrong. Today’s biggest problem is a stumbling economy that is not generating jobs. This is only the second time that the American economy has not come roaring back after a downturn. The other time, of course, was the Great Depression, when we were following the same economic policies as we are today.

What would the Founders think about our current economic problems? Here is what they said in their own words.

“The pillars of our prosperity are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.”—Thomas Jefferson 

“The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.”—James Madison 

“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.”—James Madison 

The Difference Between Freedom and Liberty

Today, liberty and freedom are used almost interchangeably. In fact, a modern American hears the term freedom more frequently because liberty has become somewhat outmoded. The Founders viewed these two concepts as very different. In their minds, man granted freedom to his fellow man, but liberty came from a higher authority. Every human was endowed with natural rights and the free exercise of those rights was called liberty. On the other hand, a person released from slavery or indentured servitude became a free person.

The history of the world is not solely about rulers, it’s also about people striving and fighting for liberty. Our sense of natural rights is deep inside each of us. Even when rulers rule with an iron fist, liberty is kept alive through stories about heroes who fight against oppression and win. Stories often remind society of first principles and give hope until a leader comes along that can help them to recover their unalienable rights.

What did the Founders think about liberty? Here is what they said in their own words.

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration

"It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases." Harry Truman

On June 11, 1776, the second Continental Congress appointed a committee to write a declaration of independence. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman were elected to the committee. One of these five was a renowned writer. For nearly thirty years, only the Bible outsold Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac, and his articles made the Pennsylvania Gazette the most successful newspaper in the colonies. But Franklin declined to draft the declaration, supposedly due to poor health, so the committee asked the thirty-three year Thomas Jefferson to draft the document.

In less than three weeks, Jefferson presented the rest of the committee with this historic document. For the most part, the committee accepted the document as written; except that Franklin made some subtle, but important revisions.  For example, Jefferson had written “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable,” which Franklin revised to “self-evident.” Some have suggested that Franklin was pushing the text toward the analytic empiricism of David Hume, but it’s more likely that the master editor was wordsmithing for a more graceful rhythm to the words. 

Mr. Madison Writes a Letter to Mr. Jefferson

“Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done.” James Madison

Prior to championing a Bill of Rights in the First Congress, James Madison wrote a revealing letter to Thomas Jefferson in October of 1788. Interestingly, much of the letter was written in a secret code only the two of them shared. The following extract from the letter gives insight into Madison’s mindset and the thinking of many of the Founders.

"It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable and patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty and individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others.

Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done.

The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy."