“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
This phrase is seared into the soul of America like no other. On this July Fourth weekend, it seems fitting to reflect on the meaning of these words and the truths canonized by them. Along the way, I’ll also be exploring the meaning of patriotism in today’s America, and consider whether different truths are being held as self-evident in our land today.
I’m going to start with two words: We hold.
Why did Jefferson write in the first person? Would it not have been bolder and more direct to write, “These truths are self-evident”? Two meanings can be seen in this choice of words that fit both the writer and his historical context. First, We hold has a tacit significance: Other people may hold other truths to be self-evident – or none at all. But the truths that follow, and no others, are the foundation on which the rest of the document is constructed. “Disagree with us if you will“, Jefferson seems to be saying, “but understand that on these points, at least, you can not convince us otherwise.“
The second meaning follows from this. Before we explore it, though, let me pause to briefly describe the intellectual well from which the Founders had drawn much of their inspiration.
Jefferson, Franklin, and other Founders were disciples of the Enlightenment. This eighteenth century European movement set out to challenge the assumption that a central authority – be it church or state, or both – could be the source of all truth. The philosophers of the Enlightenment (including among others Rousseau, Montaigne, Hume, and Locke) believed that the way to truth was through reason, explicitly rejecting the notion of truth being revealed from God.. Reason, however, must start with a small set of axiomatic truths: With no pre-accepted, or “self-evident”, truths, there are no building blocks with which to build still larger truths. Yet the number of axioms must be small, so that reason can reach as many truths as possible without resort to “just because” explanations.
And therein lies the second meaning of “We hold”: Unlike contemporary Western kings and princes, the founders were not beholden to a favorable interpretation of divine law for their moral authority; they needed no “Divine Right” as claimed by royalty. Their truths came not from the Bible or any external authority. In choosing their own self-evident truths, the Founders had taken a step that was quite radical for the eighteenth century. It was, in fact, a second Declaration of Independence, embedded within the first but no less bold: declaring independence from any authority, sectarian or secular, that might claim power over their own consciences.
By comparison to the opening, the remainder of the revolutionary phrase now might almost seem pedestrian: “…these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…” Yet the phrase has lost none of its power or glory through this analysis. Indeed, we now see more clearly the nature of the gift that has been handed down to us: The United States of America is the first nation founded not on raw power, not on religious coercion, but on reason. If we can keep it.
Another influence of the Enlightenment on the Founders also deserves attention here. The men gathered in that hall in Philadelphia two hundred and twenty-nine years ago were no group of like-minded souls. The stakes for them could not have been higher. Opinions were strongly held, and agreement often seemed impossible. Yet there was a belief among them that this opposition could be turned into a neutral, perhaps even positive force. Rules were followed that encouraged a free and open debate, and respected the right of all members to express their opinion. This pursuit of truth through the exchange of ideas was another hallmark of the Enlightenment philosophers (who in turn were drawing from the ancient Greeks.) Years later, Thomas Jefferson would write:
Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. –Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
The events of that time and place could hardly have more relevance today, when America is beset by two related fundamentalist movements: one of religion, one of politics; both claiming to represent ideologies on which our nation was founded. The former, of course, is the movement of right-wing Christians who wish to make the United States a Christian nation. The latter comprises those on the political right who would claim the mantle of patriotism to themselves exclusively, going so far as to accuse liberals of being “traitors”.
It is a strange kind of patriotism that, in proclaiming itself, violates the ideas on which our country is founded. For by rending a great divide between the two sides, the right turns away from the idea of inquiry, the possibility of learning from one’s opponent, and the goal of forming a more perfect union. The Founders were wise enough to know that none of them had all the necessary answers. In charging “treason”, today’s right wing seems to suggest that not only is the rightness of their positions certain, but that their opponents know that they are right, and yet refuse to accede to their obvious truths. The arrogance of this position is stunning; the contrast to the wisdom of the Founders is stark.
The question of secular vs. sectarian origins for our country has been much debated, with the vast preponderance of evidence coming down on the secular side. To anyone claiming the sectarian side, I respond with one of the few passages in the founding documents that make any allusion to a deity at all:
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 — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Yes, these rights are said to be endowed by a Creator. Yet the reader is not forced to assume that the Creator played an active role in this endowment. Now look again: “We hold these truths…”. These truths, and their self-evidence, transcend by far the Creator’s role in this particular story.
Who holds these truths? Not God, nor his priests. We, the People of the United States of America, hold them, now and forever.
I’ll admit I’m no scholar of either history or philosophy, merely a devout admirer of the work wrought by the founders of our nation. Corrections are welcome; arguments eagerly anticipated.
Bravo! and you’ll find no argument from me. Very well stated. Thanks for bringing this to us.
I second that, and in agreement with the thanks, KUDOS & RECOMMENDED
Superb analysis.
You should post this at every conservative blog and let them try to digest it.
Wonderful, thoughtful diary.
I reread the Declaration today and it nearly took my breath away. I’m afraid any American authoring such a document today would be whisked away in a private jet to a private cell in Syria and never be heard from again.
Thank you. That document takes my breath away, too.
You are truly a gentleman and a scholar to have blessed us all with this essay on the fourth of July. Thank you very much.
Michel Eygeum De Montaigne(1533-1592) can be considered an enlightened thinker, and a major inspiration for the the philosophers that followed him. Montaigne was certainly appalled by the wars of religion that surrounded him.
But it wasn’t until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that we can really begin to search for the beginning of the Enlightenment.
John Locke (1632-1704) and Voltaire (1694-1778) definitely belong to the Enlightenment period.
It’s a largely academic point. But, as long as the wars of religion were raging it wasn’t really possible to come up with a third way, which side with neither the Protestants nor the Catholics. But with the settlement at Westphalia, Europe began to consider the validity of the terms.
According to the terms, the territorial rulers could still to determine the religion of their subjects, but rulers could allow full toleration, if they were so inclined. Matters of religion would no longer be decided by a majority of the imperial estates and disputes were to be resolved by compromise.
The effect was to undermine the validity of state imposed religion from a conceptual point of view. But it took over a century for a secular alternative to emerge. And it took until World War One for the Europe’s republicans to fully triumph over the old system.
–the religious one.
The other one, I hold, is not political but economic. I’m not sure I’d call it “fundamentalist” because that implies philosophy. I don’t think there’s any philosophy behind it–it’s just recreation of aristocracy. Any belief, logic or philosophy we encounter are just for conning supporters.
The religious fundamentalists really do believe what they say. The economic fundamentalists will say anything they no longer need to bother.
No, I do think there are (at least) two such movements.
I think there’s more than economics driving the other movement. It’s more akin to imperialism: people having an urge to see the USA as the No. 1, kick-ass country in the world.
I want to see the USA as the world’s dominant country too; the difference is, I want it to happen because we blaze the path, not because we hold the rifles. It’s a much better way to get on top, and it’s easier to stay there that way.
I think liberals have more common ground with the folks that I think of as “economic fundamentalists” — libertarians and the like — than we do with imperialists.
I hadn’t previously thought of the Declaration as a philosophical document in the ways you outline. To me, it makes the whole section even more powerful. Too bad the founders themselves couldn’t bring themselves to see the truth in their own words for infrahuman groups like women and blacks…still, a powerful sentiment.
Thank you, Jeff! It feels good to hear people agreeing with what I wrote, but it feels great to hear I’ve influenced the way someone thinks. Now let me get my head back to its proper size… 🙂
I feel the same way about how the Founders treated women and blacks (not to mention Native Americans and others), and it’s hard for me to write about them without raising this topic. I decided to leave it out because it’s a complex topic that could have derailed the points I was trying to make.
To their great credit, Jefferson, Madison, and others were far more forward-thinking on these issues than many of their contemporaries. (Yesterday I came across a terrific quote from Madison about women, to the effect that women had already proven themselves capable of achieving to the highest levels in science. Alas, I can’t find that quote right now.) But the fact that they owned slaves is impossible to reconcile with their other achievements and writings. Perhaps with more study of the context of their times, and how they thought about the issue themselves, it’d be easier to understand — but still difficult to forgive.
Agreed….One of the texts I use in teaching Race and Ethnicity (Paul Gilroy’s Against Race) utilizes a term I was previously unfamiliar with: infrahumanity. It’s a term I’ve really come to appreciate.
Within Enlightenment philosophy, and the Declaration, is a tension between universalism and particularity. During this era, we began to see the human sciences ranking the different “races” (and defining them–we’ve still not arrived at a solid definition), as well as maintaining a general gendered hierarchy. I think that this points to the notion of “infrahumanity.” Folks in the “othered” categories (women, blacks, indigenous peoples…) weren’t subhuman, like apes, but also weren’t fully human, like white men. They were somehow less human–infrahuman–and didn’t fit within the “all men,” at least that’s where my thinking is at the moment.
I think the founders did not write this to represent all of the people, as we think of all of the people. Their times limited that idea to people like themselves: white, male, landowners. It was pretty unusual in that day, to say, as Jefferson did, that talents were found as often among the poor as the wealthy
(Instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger than benefit to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions. . .
–Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.).
The power of the ideas and vision in the Declaration of Independence, is, however, that they were extendible – in time, with much struggle – to others. Some of the precursors to the Declaration, such as the Fairfax Resolves, the Watauga Declaration, were too specific in content and in who they applied to.
But the Declaration, for the most part, was transferable to any person. For me, that helps make it an object of good remembrance, even though its makers were far from showing the ideals promised in their own words.
Bust my britches but there are some good writers on BooTrib.
Great essay Nowhere Man. It deserves a ’10’ but I can only ‘Recommend’ and handout a ‘4.’
We are suppose to hold, but somehow we’ve let them slip away. I’m holding on for dear life for all the good it’s doing me. We’ve allowed others to hold the reins for too long because we were a nation that TRUSTED those in power and look where it got us.That and the ongoing dumbing down process that many know about but still ALLOW!
I gave everyone a 4. The discussion is and has to be open for such a thing as our government and what is truly is meant to be. There is no such thing as a government ofr just a certain section of the ppl. It is a government for us all…. This administration has forgotten this and could care less about those of us that do not reap anything from their being in power. We can go to hell as far as they are concerned. This is so good to see such a discussion going on here on this. I want to thank my follow Americans for contributing to all of this thinking and verbalizing. YOu are what make me proud!