'The Enduring Principles of the Declaration of Independence'—a public lecture I will be giving widely in the lead-up to the 250th anniversary in July 2026
I'm looking forward to your presentation! Speaking of the Declaration on Memorial Day, may I share a thought regarding the meaning of "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness"?
Whatever any scholar said about the "definition" should be viewed with circumspection. I submit that what is and should be controlling (regarding the founding of our nation and the meaning of our Constitution) is what people who fought for them thought the concepts "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" meant for them and the people for whom they fought.
Have you read "American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence" by Pauline Maier? I recommend it highly. The statements in that book that I viewed as most insightful included the following on pp. 131-132, 160.
"The Declaration was" designed "to be disseminated" promptly "by print" and "the printer John Dunlap produced a broadside version the day after it was adopted." It also was "designed" to be "read aloud at public gatherings." Significantly, the "Declaration" was designed "for the ear as well as the eye," and "above all" that was true of the "eloquent preamble." The first two paragraphs of the Declaration are "the most sacred of all American political scriptures." And "when the Declaration was read listeners heard mainly what was already in their heads."
The meanings of "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" that matter most are the meanings in the minds of the people who voluntarily sacrificed their own lives, their own limbs, their own liberty and their own happiness for those concepts. Economists say that a thing is worth what people pay for it. So anyone who wants to know what "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" mean, should consider what they mean to soldiers, not merely to scholars.
Perhaps the best soldiers to look to for answers and examples were General Washington, Nathanael Greene, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine. President Lincoln is another. President Lincoln did not wear a military uniform, but as Commander in Chief, he led and thought very much about liberty as Washington did.
Thanks very much. The Declaration of Independence is so important today because it binds us and it re-instills within us our most sacred values, one of which is the right of revolution—that is, peaceful withdrawal from tyrannical government. That is the whole story—the whole enchilada—of 1776 and the ensuing Revolution and War of Independence: peaceful withdrawal from arbitrary government. I am going to be on the road for the next year with this laser focus on the Declaration. Do you have any suggestions for where else I should deliver "The Enduring Principles of the Declaration of Independence"? I can also Zoom with any group of 10 people or more.
Good evening, Eli, I listened to your interview on 5/30/2025. It was interesting, but I still don't understand what you mean when you talk about withdrawal from government. I thought it sounded like you might be alluding to secession . . . and then you actually said secession. I think it would be a very tough row to hoe to convince people that Lincoln and many other people were wrong (and died for no good reason) because secession actually was constitutional.
Good afternoon, Eli. I don't have any suggestions for venues right now, but I'll keep your question in mind.
If you're inclined to share, I'm curious about what you mean by revolution being withdrawal from tyrannical government. I think of revolution as a turning or overturning, so I'm not clear on the idea of it being a withdrawal.
In a nutshell, what was the "right of revolution" for the founders? For them, the right of revolution did not imply violent overthrow of government. Rather, it was an idea that encompassed the right to resist unconstitutional acts through nonviolent civil disobedience — and, only when this failed after long sufferance, by formal withdrawal from unjust government in the defense of freedom, equality and the right of the people to govern themselves.
In this spirit, the Declaration of Independence is a nonviolent manifesto. It makes no mention of swords, guns or war. Separately, the Continental Congress called upon American patriots to arm themselves, yet only in self-defense of God-given natural rights.
Eli, I was thinking about writing to explain a contrary view. But I clicked on your link and re-read that piece, and saw that I'd already commented regarding the issues I was thinking about raising now.
I would think you'd want to know now, so please note that the Declaration does expressly mention or allude to war repeatedly. Toward the end it declares: "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them [our British Brethren], as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Before that, the Declaration repeatedly emphasized that war and warfare were already well underway. These were crucial points in justifying the much larger conflict that everyone knew was imminent.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
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.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored 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 word "necessity" in the first sentence quoted above evoked the Declaration exactly 1 year earlier (July 1775) by the Continental Congress (comprising many of the same men). The 1775 Declaration even was written by Jefferson (and John Dickinson) and it clearly was about war. It was called The Declaration of the Causes of and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.
The colonists already were at war. In March 1775, Henry declared, "Give me liberty or give me death." In April 1775, the battles of Lexington and Concord occurred. Then militia attacked forts in upstate New York (including Ticonderoga). The big Battle of Bunker Hill was in June 1775.
The Continental Congress made Washington Command-in-Chief of the Continental Army in June 1775.
Eli, did I misunderstand your focus? When you spoke of the Declaration, did you mean the second paragraph? If so, then I agree that the people who expected to be leading the new federal government (under the Articles of Confederation) definitely did not think the people of the newly independent nation states should be resorting to armed revolution against them (or the state governments under their new constitutions). I agree they had a very non-violent idea of what the right of revolution should mean in America. I offer the following in case it might support your position.
The people who wrote state constitutions and wrote and ratified our Constitution did so to facilitate "revolutions" in government by force of logic rather than by force of arms. That's the point of our First Amendment rights and freedoms. They include voting and campaigning in connection with elections, as well as other speech about all public servants and all public issues.
President John Adams even characterized Thomas Jefferson’s election as “the Revolution of 1801.” President Jefferson, in his inauguration address, subsequently also characterized his election as “the revolution of 1800.”
James Madison even called our Constitution a "revolution in the practice of the world" because "[i]n Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power" but "America has set the example" of "charters of power granted by liberty."
Madison emphasized that “the value of this revolution” was in “the importance of instruments [state and federal constitutions], every word of which decides a question between power and liberty.” The “vigilance with which” constitutional limits on the power of public servants are “guarded by every citizen in private life, and the circumspection with which they are executed by every citizen in public trust” must be as extreme as the extreme value of our rights.
Eli sounds like a great and timely talk
I'm looking forward to your presentation! Speaking of the Declaration on Memorial Day, may I share a thought regarding the meaning of "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness"?
Whatever any scholar said about the "definition" should be viewed with circumspection. I submit that what is and should be controlling (regarding the founding of our nation and the meaning of our Constitution) is what people who fought for them thought the concepts "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" meant for them and the people for whom they fought.
Have you read "American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence" by Pauline Maier? I recommend it highly. The statements in that book that I viewed as most insightful included the following on pp. 131-132, 160.
"The Declaration was" designed "to be disseminated" promptly "by print" and "the printer John Dunlap produced a broadside version the day after it was adopted." It also was "designed" to be "read aloud at public gatherings." Significantly, the "Declaration" was designed "for the ear as well as the eye," and "above all" that was true of the "eloquent preamble." The first two paragraphs of the Declaration are "the most sacred of all American political scriptures." And "when the Declaration was read listeners heard mainly what was already in their heads."
The meanings of "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" that matter most are the meanings in the minds of the people who voluntarily sacrificed their own lives, their own limbs, their own liberty and their own happiness for those concepts. Economists say that a thing is worth what people pay for it. So anyone who wants to know what "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" mean, should consider what they mean to soldiers, not merely to scholars.
Perhaps the best soldiers to look to for answers and examples were General Washington, Nathanael Greene, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine. President Lincoln is another. President Lincoln did not wear a military uniform, but as Commander in Chief, he led and thought very much about liberty as Washington did.
Thanks very much. The Declaration of Independence is so important today because it binds us and it re-instills within us our most sacred values, one of which is the right of revolution—that is, peaceful withdrawal from tyrannical government. That is the whole story—the whole enchilada—of 1776 and the ensuing Revolution and War of Independence: peaceful withdrawal from arbitrary government. I am going to be on the road for the next year with this laser focus on the Declaration. Do you have any suggestions for where else I should deliver "The Enduring Principles of the Declaration of Independence"? I can also Zoom with any group of 10 people or more.
Good evening, Eli, I listened to your interview on 5/30/2025. It was interesting, but I still don't understand what you mean when you talk about withdrawal from government. I thought it sounded like you might be alluding to secession . . . and then you actually said secession. I think it would be a very tough row to hoe to convince people that Lincoln and many other people were wrong (and died for no good reason) because secession actually was constitutional.
Good afternoon, Eli. I don't have any suggestions for venues right now, but I'll keep your question in mind.
If you're inclined to share, I'm curious about what you mean by revolution being withdrawal from tyrannical government. I think of revolution as a turning or overturning, so I'm not clear on the idea of it being a withdrawal.
In a nutshell, what was the "right of revolution" for the founders? For them, the right of revolution did not imply violent overthrow of government. Rather, it was an idea that encompassed the right to resist unconstitutional acts through nonviolent civil disobedience — and, only when this failed after long sufferance, by formal withdrawal from unjust government in the defense of freedom, equality and the right of the people to govern themselves.
In this spirit, the Declaration of Independence is a nonviolent manifesto. It makes no mention of swords, guns or war. Separately, the Continental Congress called upon American patriots to arm themselves, yet only in self-defense of God-given natural rights.
Here is a piece I wrote on exactly your question a year ago: https://elimerritt.substack.com/p/the-fourth-of-july-is-about-americas
Eli, I was thinking about writing to explain a contrary view. But I clicked on your link and re-read that piece, and saw that I'd already commented regarding the issues I was thinking about raising now.
I would think you'd want to know now, so please note that the Declaration does expressly mention or allude to war repeatedly. Toward the end it declares: "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them [our British Brethren], as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Before that, the Declaration repeatedly emphasized that war and warfare were already well underway. These were crucial points in justifying the much larger conflict that everyone knew was imminent.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
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.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored 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 word "necessity" in the first sentence quoted above evoked the Declaration exactly 1 year earlier (July 1775) by the Continental Congress (comprising many of the same men). The 1775 Declaration even was written by Jefferson (and John Dickinson) and it clearly was about war. It was called The Declaration of the Causes of and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.
The colonists already were at war. In March 1775, Henry declared, "Give me liberty or give me death." In April 1775, the battles of Lexington and Concord occurred. Then militia attacked forts in upstate New York (including Ticonderoga). The big Battle of Bunker Hill was in June 1775.
The Continental Congress made Washington Command-in-Chief of the Continental Army in June 1775.
Eli, did I misunderstand your focus? When you spoke of the Declaration, did you mean the second paragraph? If so, then I agree that the people who expected to be leading the new federal government (under the Articles of Confederation) definitely did not think the people of the newly independent nation states should be resorting to armed revolution against them (or the state governments under their new constitutions). I agree they had a very non-violent idea of what the right of revolution should mean in America. I offer the following in case it might support your position.
The people who wrote state constitutions and wrote and ratified our Constitution did so to facilitate "revolutions" in government by force of logic rather than by force of arms. That's the point of our First Amendment rights and freedoms. They include voting and campaigning in connection with elections, as well as other speech about all public servants and all public issues.
President John Adams even characterized Thomas Jefferson’s election as “the Revolution of 1801.” President Jefferson, in his inauguration address, subsequently also characterized his election as “the revolution of 1800.”
James Madison even called our Constitution a "revolution in the practice of the world" because "[i]n Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power" but "America has set the example" of "charters of power granted by liberty."
Madison emphasized that “the value of this revolution” was in “the importance of instruments [state and federal constitutions], every word of which decides a question between power and liberty.” The “vigilance with which” constitutional limits on the power of public servants are “guarded by every citizen in private life, and the circumspection with which they are executed by every citizen in public trust” must be as extreme as the extreme value of our rights.