As far as I know, most scholars believe the concept outlined in the DoI is that of rights that a person cannot, even if he wishes, ‘alienate’ in the sense of giving away. We can consent to have another protect or enforce our rights on our behalf, as a fiduciary power, but we cannot give any person or party the full ownership of rights that are ours by virtue of our humanity.

I tell my students to imagine invisible rubber bands connecting their personhood with their natural rights. We can let others run with those rights, to an extent, but we cannot sever them from ourselves.

I believe it is well-established among historians and political theorists that the DoI was, indeed, a public argument for dissolving the relationship of the people of the colonies with the British government. Grounded in a Lockean theory of natural law and natural rights, the DoI lists the shocking violations of natural justice by the King.

While it might have been more pleasing to the British government had the colnoists waited for evolution, you will not be surprised [I hope] that we citizens of the U.S. are rather fond of our nation and approve of the results of the revolution.

Meanwhile, we like your queen and all look forward to seeing her outfits.

“For nearly 60 years she has performed the role of a constitutional monarch and put scarcely a foot wrong. She has witnessed much – more, in fact, than any previous sovereign when you consider her worldwide travel. But she has revealed little or nothing of her own conclusions about the state of the world.

In some areas the underlying thrust of what she is trying to say may not be readily apparent, which perhaps will make it all the more intriguing for the diplomats – some of whom probably were not even born when she stepped on to the world stage as Queen in 1952. But listen carefully perhaps they should. There will not be many occasions when this world body will be addressed by someone with anything like the experience of the small woman with the silver hair and large hat, who will step up to the podium of the General Assembly later today.”

Owen H.: Only if the Crown had been willing to go that route 235 years ago. And without our example, would they have ever changed?

It’s worth pointing out that “the Crown” was not at fault so much as the ministers advising the Crown.

But you are right to say that the loss of some of the American colonies came as a rude awakening and sowed the seeds of the thinking which led to the Statute of Westminster and the gradual evolution of the Empire into the Commonwealth. Still, HM Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, etc, Head of the Commonwealth, visits the United Nations today in the year before we celebrate her Diamond Jubilee.

The virtue of our pragmatic and flexible constitutional arrangements are that the they do permit evolution rather than revolution and I do wonder whether the relative inflexibility of the US constitutional settlement was such a good idea after all. Time alone will tell.

Randy: …As for “men,” I think there are two traditional use of the word. It can refer to everyone, as in ‘mankind’, or it can refer specifically to adult males, but not females or children. Devining which the author means can be troublesome, and it’s the inexactitude of the English language which is at fault. 

Thanks for acknowleding that. I hesitate to bring it up anymore because people (men) seem to get so irritated when I do. I have to think that if the generic term for people was “women” so you guys had to guess whether you’re meant or not, you’d see the issue differently.

My belief is that in the reference to “all men are created equal”, Jefferson meant all people, including women. Why? Because there is no reason to think that he would say that men are all equal among themselves, but women are so different that there are differences among women. He might think that women are inferior in some fashion to men, but we don’t know even that.

I suspect he never thought it through. Women had their place and presumably liked it, or if they didn’t they kept it to themselves because the blowback was too harsh if they didn’t. He probably would have been shocked if women even expressed the desire to vote or to hold office, let alone thinking they should have the option.

However, Jefferson also realized that times change and left open the possibility that the Constitution and our laws might adapt and change depending upon prevailing mores and thoughts of equality. Indeed, one would hope that he looked forward to a future whereby blacks were no longer considered slave material.

If he did, he didn’t look forward to it to the extent that he would free his own, which it was certainly in his power to do. Neither did Patrick “give me liberty or give me death” Henry.

Owen H.: LL, it may interest you to know that at first the majority of the colonists, including such notables as John Adams, considered themselves to be loyal Englishmen and subjects of the Crown, and only turned to Independence when the Crown and Parliament persisted in denying them the rights and privileges of British citizenship, instead treating them as second class citizens and worse. They kept their oaths until the Crown failed to hold up Its end of the bargain.

Indeed. If one reads Jefferson’s “A Summary View of the Rights of British America”, what was being sought seems very much akin to the solution adopted by the Statute of Westminster whereby the different dominions of the Crown each acquired their own executive upon whose advice the Crown would act in relation to that dominion such that the Crown in right of Canada is separate and co-equal with the Crown in right of the UK.

And of course, the situation constitutional settlements may evolve yet further – for example, the Canadian Parliament could one day decide to abolish the monarchy and the Act would undoubtedly receive the Royal Assent.

Perhaps evolution is better than revolution.

While you’ve been lamenting your treasonous American subjects, there’s been some bad news about your other colonies.

What I have always found interesting about the Declaration of Independence is that it very much reads like a bill of particulars claiming rescission of the social contract between monarch and subjects.

I assume that every legislator in a colonial legislature, every member of a Governor’s Council, every Governor and Officeholder and every Judge or Magistrate would have taken the Oath of Allegiance. I suppose that many of them, although disposed to a new constitutional settlement, would have been troubled by the binding nature of their Oaths of Allegiance to the Crown.

Were all these particulars of breach designed to convince the doubters that they were absolved of their Oaths by the wrongful acts of the monarch and could with good conscience regard themselves as being dispensed from their allegiance? Still, it is surprising that so many of the “great and good” were prepared to treat their Oaths as if they mattered not, since it is not something a gentleman did in those days. That is why I find the whole concept of the Daughters of the American Revolution somewhat absurd, why be interested in your lineage if it only proves that you are descended from a traitor?

There were, of course, some loyalists who did honour their Oaths. I think about 20% of the populations of the rebellious colonies upped sticks and went elsewhere, notably to Canada (I suppose to Canada’s gain), and I am pleased that the Jacobite heroine Flora MacDonald returned home to the Isle of Skye and is buried in Kilmuir Cemetery there.

I have a hard time separating the logic from the substance of your post. It would be helpful if you clarified. Thanks.

As for “men,” I think there are two traditional use of the word. It can refer to everyone, as in ‘mankind’, or it can refer specifically to adult males, but not females or children. Devining which the author means can be troublesome, and it’s the inexactitude of the English language which is at fault.

My belief is that in the reference to “all men are created equal”, Jefferson meant all people, including women. Why? Because there is no reason to think that he would say that men are all equal among themselves, but women are so different that there are differences among women. He might think that women are inferior in some fashion to men, but we don’t know even that.

On the other hand, he was a product of his times, and I don’t think that when he said government derives it legitimacy from the consent of men, that he was using it in terms of everyone, including women. Clearly, women had no role in government or their representation, various English queens notwithstanding.

However, Jefferson also realized that times change and left open the possibility that the Constitution and our laws might adapt and change depending upon prevailing mores and thoughts of equality. Indeed, one would hope that he looked forward to a future whereby blacks were no longer considered slave material.

Cornellian: Let’s consider some more of the text:“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.”Considering they went on to set up a government which didn’t require the consent of women, either they themselves set up a government which did not justly possess its powers, at least as far as women were concerned, or “Men” means what it says.

They also set up a government that, in most cases, didn’t require the consent of those who did not own property. Do you think their definition of “men” was “sane adult male human non-felon property owners,” or do you think their concept of “consent of the governed” was a little more nuanced than you allow?

Of course, most people today would say that the foregoing are silly, tendentious questions, which have perfectly good answers, but not yes/no answers. And most people in 1776 would have said the same about similar questions involving women.

That’s your argument? Anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be a pedophile?

Let’s consider some more of the text:

“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.”

Considering they went on to set up a government which didn’t require the consent of women, either they themselves set up a government which did not justly possess its powers, at least as far as women were concerned, or “Men” means what it says.

As opposed to Woodrow Wilson, who: “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives, so concrete, so intimately involved in the circumstances of the day in which it was conceived and written.”

This is quite a fun read, considering it is 89 years old.

The Declaration of Independence in American
by H. L. Mencken

“But when things get so bad that a man ain’t hardly got no rights at all no more, but you might almost call him a slave, then everybody ought to get together and throw the grafters out, and put in new ones who won’t carry on so high and steal so much, and then watch them.”

Which, I think, is quite pertinent in today’s world.

http://www.io.com/gibbonsb/mencken/declaration.html

What’s the difference? A LOT, actually. “Unalienable” (per Black’s Law Dictionary) means that these rights “are INCAPABLE of being alienated, that is sold and transferred”. “Inalienable”, on the other hand are “rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the CONSENT of those possessing such rights”. Which means, as one person puts it, “You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.”

These articles below go into it in a little bit more detail:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12432006/Unalienable-vs-Inalienable-Rights-Know-the-difference

http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/UnalienableRightsNew.dwt.asp

(Which is not to say the IRA are right today; by attacking innocent people, both sides have long since forfeited the moral high ground.)

Angus: Apart from government employees per capita being near historical lows, and the British Parliament no longer passing laws for us, yes, the situations are exactly the same!!!1!

1) The government workforce is expanding, and the armed government workforce is exploding. SWAT teams/capita?
2) Britain may not be regulating us, but there’s the U.N. and the folks who think it and European law should guide our legislation. You may have noticed a few posts about that here.

Sarcastro: So true! Also defenders of Lance Armstrong…

Puh-leeze, you’re just a shill for Sheryl Crow.

Sammy Finkelman:
Let me interpret this:“We hold these truths to be self-evident….”There is no need to argue or prove this.“that all men are created equal….”Not all whites and not all blacks, but all men. Not all Americans and not all citizens. And not some people are more equal than others. Not Americans are equal to Americans and Mexicans to Mexicans but all men have the same rights regardless of geographical lines..“And that they endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..”There are certain rights that cannot be taken away, and belong also to aliens.“and that amomng these are life…”You can’t pass a law certain people have a right to live and not others or that would inevuitably result in people’s deaths.“liberty”You cannot pass law that would make some people slaves.“and the pursuit of happiness”Pursuit implies movement. You cannot pass laws that interfere with the opursuit of happiness .“And that to secure these rights governments”Plural.Are instututed among men…And that what you say every country does this or every country has a right — that’s foreign law. And we are not talking about dangers to the constitution in mos cases.

I apologize to all for the tone and illogicality of my post, but stand by the substance.

Your garbage is not worth a response.

Mark F.: I don’t favor violent revolution, but the defenders of King George sounded a lot like the defenders of Bush and Obama today.

No, like the tea party people, at least those of them who want to enforce the immigration laws, without debating or changing anything about them.

Robert Allen Leeper:
The only ones who deny that “men” in this context means “human beings” are those who want to screw boys [not “men”] — or screw us all.

Let me interpret this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident….”

There is no need to argue or prove this.

“that all men are created equal….”

Not all whites and not all blacks, but all men. Not all Americans and not all citizens. And not some people are more equal than others. Not Americans are equal to Americans and Mexicans to Mexicans but all men have the same rights regardless of geographical lines..

“And that they endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..”

There are certain rights that cannot be taken away, and belong also to aliens.

“and that amomng these are life…”

You can’t pass a law certain people have a right to live and not others or that would inevuitably result in people’s deaths.

“liberty”

You cannot pass law that would make some people slaves.

“and the pursuit of happiness”

Pursuit implies movement. You cannot pass laws that interfere with the opursuit of happiness .

“And that to secure these rights governments”

Plural.

Are instututed among men…

And that what you say every country does this or every country has a right – that’s foreign law. And we are not talking about dangers to the constitution in mos cases.

Angus: Apart from government employees per capita being near historical lows,

Uh, no. You’re off by at least an order of magnitude. Federal civilian employment alone is about 1% of the population; in 1789 it was about 1/10th of that.

And that doesn’t even address state or local government. (Or the jobs contracted out; it doesn’t matter who signs the paychecks, but what job they’re doing.)

Indians – savages, merciless, they all want to kill us all. [Hint hint we should kill them all first].

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
…
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:

Apart from government employees per capita being near historical lows, and the British Parliament no longer passing laws for us, yes, the situations are exactly the same!!!1!

He’d be wrong, but for reasons to subtle and complex to elucidate in a blog comment.

cecil kirksey:
Hmmm. It would seem that the society of 1776 did not respect that “all men (humans) are created equally”. Black slaves were certainly men but not treated as equals. And women were certainly not given the same standing as men. The colonial society of 1776 was about economic power preservation for the white, rich landowners.

It cannot be denied that practice fell far short of theory, and that this must be a great source of shame. It is arguable that the Founders failed to do the best they could to actualize their ideals. I object to and condemn any attempt to falsify the semantic reality of those ideals.

Robert Allen Leeper: The only ones who deny that “men” in this context means “human beings” are those who want to screw boys [not “men”] — or screw us all.

Hmmm. It would seem that the society of 1776 did not respect that “all men (humans) are created equally”. Black slaves were certainly men but not treated as equals. And women were certainly not given the same standing as men. The colonial society of 1776 was about economic power preservation for the white, rich landowners.

Cornellian: If all men are created equal, that is final.It’s a good thing for women that it wasn’t final.

The only ones who deny that “men” in this context means “human beings” are those who want to screw boys [not "men"] – or screw us all.