This Missing Piece

“Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is a practical document for the use of practical men. It is not a thesis for philosophers, but a whip for tyrants; it is not a theory of government but a program of action.”

-Woodrow Wilson

Before you read this post it’s important to understand that my education is strongly guided by a set of principles that originally belonged to a very wise and ancient Greek philosopher named Socrates who I think might have appreciated the reasoning behind Woodrow Wilson’s above-mentioned quote. This is because Socrates himself never wrote any theses during his lifetime or anything in fact because he couldn’t. Socrates was illiterate you see, which meant that he expressed his opinions and ideas rigorously through speech rather than writing during a time when freedom of speech/opinion/religion weren’t even close to being recognized as human rights. Why does Socrates continue to be remembered as one of the most influential philosophers in Western history to this day? Because he never stopped believing that his truths were important and that others needed to hear them despite the resistance he faced at the time. Because he knew in his heart that it was unjust for his Athenian government to deny him these rights. But mostly because he was sentenced to death for things that most democracies now consider inalienable human rights. The point that I am trying to get across of course is that Socrates was a true influencer because he explored ideas for the sake of finding truth and beauty and only for the sake of finding truth and beauty. He didn’t share his knowledge and wisdom in exchange for money or power, but simply for fulfillment which he sometimes referred to as “a good life.”

What Socrates really needed during his lifetime was for someone to listen to him. To listen without criticism, without judgment, and without finding flaws in either him or his ideas. So surely, one of the best ways to honour Socrates’ memory is by first listening to the words we study without criticism, without judgement and even without evaluation. We need to listen first. Our liberal studies professor has urged us to “let [the] author lead us for a while” when reading classic texts so this is what we try to do. “Let them lead you where THEY want to take you” he says, “It is by allowing them to be your teacher for a while that you will most likely learn something important.”

For this reason, when we study historic works such as The Declaration of Independence as a class together, we first listen carefully and respectfully to the words we are presented with and since we are giving these authors the benefit of the doubt, we don’t immediately search for contradictions within their work either. Instead, we allow Jefferson (in this case) to be our teacher for a while. We let him lead us. We let him teach us. And once we believe that we have uncovered the deepest principles within his work and are also wise enough to judge whether or not he was able to grasp the truth, it is only then, that we may attempt to evaluate his claims.

One of the interesting things about this level of participation I have noticed, is that since it requires a higher degree of consciousness, I am also able to become aware of the feelings that arise within me when I’m reading documents such as this one. And do you know which one arises most often when I read The Declaration of Independence surprisingly? Envy. Why? Because Canada doesn’t have a founding document equivalent to this. No special written document that binds us all together in our principles and ideals. We do have our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms I suppose but it places confines on our freedoms which are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). According to our Charter we don’t have “unalienable rights” we just have “rights.” Our government doesn't empower us to pursue happiness and presumably our consent wasn’t (and still isn’t) of great importance to our "founders" who also didn't encourage us to fight back against unjust powers in the way that America’s "founders" did. I guess you could say that we never really established a clear identity as one whole individual nation in part because we don’t have a special declaration announcing what our identity is exactly, and it is this lack which caused me to feel envious of this document, I think. Nonetheless, I've enjoyed learning about The Declaration of Independence because it helps me to connect knowledge and piece together Western history as I understand it and even feel confident enough to begin evaluating some of its claims which I will proceed to do in the following paragraphs.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” it states, “self-evident” to whom I wonder? To the "founding fathers" of America? The landed gentry? The literate? To Christians? Those who have developed the ability to reason? To English speaking Americans? Pretty much the most provocative wording that Jefferson could have chosen I would say, and make no mistake, this was by design. He then proceeds to list some unalienable rights that can never be taken away from the American people when he declares 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” which I believe Jefferson intended to transform into imperishable freedoms, designed specifically to protect American society (and the identity of American society) thereafter while solidifying the truth that government power can only be just when it has the consent of the governed. These parts of the declaration were written in a way that could never expire and this was also by design. If the government should violate any of these natural freedoms he continues “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it [form of government]”. This quote suggests that Jefferson could easily predict a need for this stipulation in the future. He knew that African Americans would eventually have to “provide new guards for their future security” and this declaration would officially and legally secure their right to do so.

Detrimentally however, the Continental Congress made a cowardly decision to omit the entire paragraph that Jefferson wrote on slavery which stated “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 & 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 & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or 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 on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

In an explanatory note that was published many years later, Jefferson gives a vague account of this amendment and why the Congress decided to delete this section of the Declaration explaining that at the time, many committee members felt worried that his allegations toward the King in this paragraph would offend English allies who were “worth keeping terms with” and because the two southernmost colonies were still not in favour of ending slavery. But what if this section had been included? Would it have or could it have provided a source of protection for anyone who would be directly affected by the institution of slavery from this point forward in the United States?

Like many other political philosophers, Jefferson was able to grasp the truths of his day and was able to write about them in ways that many others could not. Arguably, he could outthink all of his allies and most of his enemies. As a result, he was tasked to write a document that heavily contradicted his own personal involvement with slavery (being a slave owner himself). Jefferson was a man who also wanted power. A man who eventually served as the third president of the United States from 1801-1809 in large part due to his ongoing obedience and loyalty to the Congress. What America really needed was for an unbiased outsider to help design its Declaration. Someone who didn't have conflicting interests or motives like Jefferson did. Someone with the will of Jefferson but the courage of Socrates. Someone who didn't care about making a few enemies if it meant that they could create a more just society for all Americans. Someone who may not necessarily have been the "best writer" by conventional standards, but who would have had the interests of everybody in mind and would have risked everything to see their design come to fruition unaltered and unmanipulated.

The Declaration of Independence was not a “peace treaty”. If it was a “peace treaty” it wouldn’t have referred to the first inhabitants of America as “merciless Indian Savages”. If it was a “peace treaty” it would have included Jefferson’s paragraph condemning the King of Great Britain for allowing the transatlantic slave trade to persist. The Declaration of Independence was an act of desperation written by someone with highly conflicting interests. Someone who served as a delegate in the very congress that had the authority to edit his work before publishing. Jefferson was on the inside which means that his perspective wasn’t impartial by any means. He was writing on behalf of the governed while simultaneously occupying a position as a representative. It was a conflict of interest in every possible way. As a result, the Declaration was compromised during the editing process in a way that would have enduring impacts on those it sought to protect. The document that has shaped and continues to shape American politics, culture, and society to this day. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t designed to be a flawless document because its author Thomas Jefferson (who was an experienced writer by this time) clearly contradicts his own ideals in it. It was a document that was meant to be challenged by the soon-to-be governed. He expected backlash in response to it and he would have expected it to be justly updated by now.

I can understand why Woodrow Wilson felt so protective of this document, and why he would have wanted to protect it from "thesis writing philosophers" who might accidentally discredit its content somehow or affect its validity in some way. But I can also understand how an outsiders perspective could reveal truths that are somewhat impossible for insiders to see. Truths that would have been impossible for Jefferson to see from his position. Similarly to how a professional councilor can sometimes help us to understand our psychological and emotional state better than we can understand it ourselves. Sometimes it takes an outsider to assess our situation from an unbiased perspective. The truths that emerge are never easy to digest but at least they can help us to detect areas of contention or trauma so that we may begin our healing process. I hope that there are American philosophers who are looking in on Canada this very moment with a similar interest. Someone who might be able to understand our political actions more clearly than we can perhaps. Someone who sees Canada like a younger sibling to the United States, who cares enough about our safety to help us detect, acknowledge and rectify our wrongs. Someone who wants to help us live a good life too.

Sincerely,

Heather

Note: This post was inspired by the song "Perfectly Broken" by Banners. A song that somehow perfectly symbolizes my relationship with political philosophy and the perfectly broken philosophers who write it.

Works Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s1, Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c11.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence. pp.73-75. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/rough-draft-of-the-declaration-of- independence/