God versus Nature: Influences on the Declaration of Independence
The justification provided for revolution in the Declaration of Independence is based largely on the concept of Natural rights and social contract theory. These ideas have their origins in the minds of thinkers in fifteenth and sixteenth century Europe. However, in the early seventeenth century, the theory diverged, following two different and distinct trains of thought. The first train remained in Europe where rational thinkers, fighting against the Christian influence of the time, sought to explain why the "divine right of kings" theory was illegitimate, and why the purpose of government should have been to preserve our Natural rights. The second train followed the Puritans across the Atlantic into New England, where social contract theory took the guise of covenant theology, the basis for Puritan government. The Declaration of Independence, then, became the synthesis of these two trains of thought, and borrowed both from the Puritan influence in New England and the writings of Locke and others in Europe to justify breaking away from the king of England.
The early Natural rights philosophers include the Huguenots in France, Richard Hooker in England, Francisco Suarez in Spain, and Johannes Althusius in the Netherlands. Their theory reads almost like a parable, a perverse twist on the expulsion from paradise. These men imagined a pregovernmental state of nature, a time when all men were free of political restraints. In this state of nature, man possessed certain natural rights inherent to all men, and these rights were enforced by each individual's own might. When this state of nature became unsatisfactory, individuals came together to establish civil government by means of social contract, where they agreed to surrender to government the individual enforcement of their natural rights. The key idea here is that government, in whatever form, rested on the individual's consent as expressed in a historical contract (Anderson, 59).
Philosophers in Europe took this theory a few steps further. Men such as Milton, Harrington, Sydney, Locke, Blackstone, Vattel, and Pufendorf first further defined "natural rights." Locke specifically names these rights as being "life, liberty, and property," the lattermost being renamed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence as the "pursuit of happiness." The technical names border on being irrelevant, as the rights themselves often get grouped together under the vague title of "Natural rights" and are themselves often taken for granted in the theories of seventeenth century philosophers (Hamburger, 908).
Natural rights, according to Locke et. al., predate the existence of government (i.e. existed in the state of nature) and are superior to it. Therefore, these rights form the "real" basis of political rights after the establishment of civil government. Because civil government is based on the social contract, four corollaries were formed:
1. The consent of the governed: Natural man established government by contractual consent. He left the state of nature willingly for the purpose of maintaining his natural rights more effectively. Therefore, no government can rule without his consent.
2. Popular sovereignty: Because the state exists by the consent of the people, the sovereignty of the people looms behind it. This means that sovereign power resides with the people (defined as the majority) and cannot, therefore, be delegated to one man.
3. Naturally limited government: The state, formed by compact, acquired no powers not possessed by individuals in the state of nature. Further, the only right surrendered by man upon entering the social contract was his own individual enforcement of his inherent rights. Government, then, is limited by the rights of man.
4. The right to revolution: Because man established government by contract, he had the right to withdraw his consent. Therefore, the right to revolution is an inalienable right of all free men (Anderson, 124-125).
In many ways, Locke was reacting to the Christian influence on government in the seventeenth century. With the advent of Newton's theories and a new rational approach the universe the Natural rights philosophers broke away from the traditional Christian approach to government. In essence, Locke's philosophy is a rebellion against the "divine right of kings" theory, which states that monarchs derive their power from God and not the people.
Newton did not intend to become a symbol for natural rights, but his theories were largely popular among the philosophers of his day. Newton had "uncovered the secrets of nature," and therefore of Nature's God (Becker, 44). Newton's physics was also a way to replace religion. M. Leon Bloch, in his book La philosophie de Newton, wrote that "Henceforth it will be possible for natural science, that is to say physics, not only to struggle against theology, but to supplant it. The contradictory Gods of religion will be replaced by a new idea, that of a being who is known to us through his works, and to whom we can attain only through science." Newton's theories denounced Christianity in a way, by deifying nature; that is, the new understanding of Nature caused many philosophers, Locke especially, to worship nature as if it were God. Carl L. Becker, in his article "Historical Antecedents to the Declaration: The Natural Rights Philosophy," writes that, "Since Nature was now the new God, source of all wisdom and righteousness, it was to Nature that the eighteenth century looked for guidance, from Nature that it expected to receive the tablets of law." In other words, Locke, Rousseau, and all of their contemporaries looked away from God and religion, and looked towards Nature to guide their philosophies.
It can therefore be deduced that social contract theory is somewhat anti-Christian in intent. Christianity is bad for government for two independent reasons. The first is that it justifies the divine right theory. The second, and perhaps the more important, is that Christianity puts an emphasis on a willful God, who can change His mind as He pleases. Nature, by contrast is regular and predictable, and therefore more easy to work with. It can be argued, therefore, that Locke and his fellow thinkers used nature to justify their opinions. However, this becomes a moot point in terms of the Declaration, because Jefferson seems to have believed in a deified Nature wholeheartedly, as indicated in the opening paragraph, when he refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
However, evidence does exist that there are religious undertones in Locke's theory. Joshua F. Dienstag, in his article "Serving God and mammon," argues that Locke's theories are consistent with Protestant ethics, namely those of self-denial and hard work (Dientstag, 503). Furthermore, the state of nature is comparable to Eden, and the creation of government is analogous to the expulsion from paradise, proving that the Natural rights philosophers were at least influenced by religion, perhaps unconsciously.
Indeed, the early Natural rights philosophers were reacting to tensions within Protestantism. The conflicts of the Protestant Reformation caused a reexamination of the fundamental basis of political authority. The so-called "powers that be" of the sixteenth century were of God. The new teachings of Protestantism followed this line of reasoning, but, contrary to Catholicism, taught that each individual had a direct responsibility to God. The Protestants, then, began to adopt their own social contract theory. The Puritans in England used this theory against the Stuart claim of divine right to the throne (Anderson, 59). Furthermore, Calvin, the theological father of the Puritans, spoke out against divine right theory, claiming that "In that obedience which we hold to be the commands of rulers we must... be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject... If they command anything against Him, let us not pay the least heed to it" (Becker, 33). Calvin's argument is a primitive form of the contract theory; because a contract is overseen by God, if a king breaks that contract, by going against the wishes of God, the governed do not have to follow the rule of the king.
The result of revolt against divine right theory was the Puritan development of covenant theology. Puritans in New England believed in "conditional allegiance," or a contract between citizens and rulers that can be voided when government misbehaves. Furthermore, the central element of Puritan theology is "the covenant," which is a voluntary agreement, sanctified by God, in which individuals freely surrendered autonomy in exchange for something that they considered to be of greater value (Wald, 38).
Puritans also understood that the relationship between the people and the governed is one of mutual obligation. Their models for this idea were Biblical covenants. Adam, Noah, and Abraham all entered into contracts with God, for example. God's promise to abide by the terms of His contracts despite his superior power made him a constitutional monarch of sorts. Therefore, if God could be bound by contract, surely an earthly monarch could (Wald, 40).
Puritans further recognized that all men, the saved and the damned, needed to be governed. This led to a series of written compacts, the Mayflower Compact among them, which outlined specifically the way man was to be governed and was signed by each citizen of that society (Anderson, 60). Echoes of this idea can be found in the current American reliance on the written word of law.
Contract theory emphasized the importance of the individual as the basic unit of society. Only the voluntary consent of the individual brought legitimate government into being, an idea hauntingly familiar in the light of Locke's theory. The Puritans also felt that these contracts were subordinate to a higher law, though higher law to the Puritans meant God, and not Nature. The Puritan concept of inalienable rights was therefore deeply entrenched in their religion, and these rights were thought to be God-given (Anderson, 61). Therefore, it would seem that the main distinction between Puritan social contract theory and Lockean social contract theory is the Puritan reliance on God as the source of higher law and Locke's reliance on Nature.
In 1687, John Wise led his people to refuse taxes levied by Governor Andros in Massachusetts. He felt that the assertion of no taxes without the consent of the people's representatives was a privilege of all Englishmen (Anderson, 61). Wise, then, was the first man to cry, "No taxation without representation!"
Wise, drawing on the influence of Samuel Pufendorf, an important Lockean predecessor, wrote that in the state of nature and in civil society, power originated and rested in the people, unless the people chose a government other than democracy. He also felt that Reason and Revelation were emanations of God's wisdom (Anderson, 62). This is interesting, because, to Locke, Reason originated in the state of nature, and was the only limiting factor on man. Perhaps, then the two strains of social contract theory are not so different.
Indeed, according to Alexis de Tocqueville, the French philosopher who studied American democracy in the Jacksonian era, the Puritan influence on American government is obvious. Several of the concepts that developed from social contract theory - the corollaries previously discussed - are also apparent in Puritan government. These concepts include covenants, which are the basis for the ideas of limited government, delegated power, and popular rule (or popular sovereignty) (Kessler, 779). Indeed, other aspects of Puritan thought can be found that are related to the corollaries of European social contract theory. For example, the Puritans believed that we have a moral right to resist unjust exercises of governmental power. As first explained by Calvin, if a ruler did something contrary to higher law - i.e. God's will - the Christian man had a duty to resist that ruling (Beitzinger, 63).
Tocqueville further asserts that European thought (i.e. Locke) was as dominated by the ideas of the New Testament as Puritanism was (Kessler, 783). It should also be noted, however, that Tocqueville recognized that governments based on the New Testament were inherently unstable. Sanford Kessler, in his article, "Tocqueville's Puritans," explains:
"Tocqueville shows that inherent conflict within Christianity itself made the balance achieved by the Puritans unworkable. Put simply, the democratic revolution Christ set in motion was opposed in principle to certain key elements of ancient Judaism. In attempting to synthesize Old and New Testament theology, the architects of Christianity created a sort of mixed regime, a blend of hierarchy and equality, obedience and independence, reason and revelation. But Tocqueville believed that mixed regimes were inherently unstable and that, in any given case, one set of principles inevitable rules the other" (Kessler, 785).
This serves as explanation for why Puritanism failed. Undoubtedly, Jefferson removed the religious element of the Puritan philosophy when drafting the declaration, choosing to rely on Nature as his guiding force instead. Hence, Jefferson removed the unstable element of Puritan philosophy to create something that has existed through two centuries.
The seeds of the Declaration of Independence - the law of nature, natural rights, consent of the governed, right of resistance to unjust rule, etc. - had therefore already taken route in the New England mind before these ideas were, according to A. J. Beitzinger, "refined and secularized in the language of rationalism," meaning that Jefferson's ideas were rooted in Puritan theology, but became polished by his concept of Nature (Beitzinger, 111).
Jefferson took this philosophy and applied it to the times. His application of both strands of theory is evident in several ways.
First, he used compact theory. Kenneth Wald, author of Religion and Politics in the United States, writes that "The concept of government as compact gained such ready acceptance among colonial Americans because it bore such a close resemblance to a central element in Puritan theology, the covenant" (Wald, 38). He continues:
"If the relationship between colonist and king was a contract sealed by the authority of God - in other words a covenant - then the terms of that contract bore divine authority. The citizens owed allegiance to the ruler and the ruler, in turn, was committed to honor the contract by acting within its limits. In the view of the colonists, 'Rulers who violate the agreed-upon forms are usurpers and so to be legitimately resisted' " (Wald, 39).
Here, covenant theology and the right to resist clearly come together; the right to resist, in fact, exists because of covenant theology: when one signer of the compact breaks it, the other signers have the right to declare that contract null. Likewise, if a ruler violates the contract, resistance by the governed is legitimate. Because obedience is conditional on the ruler behaving, it could be withdrawn. King George abridged the rights to which the colonists felt they were entitled. Therefore, the colonists no longer owed him loyalty.
Wald concludes:
"The Declaration of Independence begins with the assertion that the colonists deserved independence under "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Consistent with covenant theory, the colonists asserted that the bond between rulers and ruled was dependent on the ruler's respect for those rights that God granted to men. Once the terms of the compact had been violated by a despotic King George (as the colonists attempted to demonstrate in great detail), the people of America could claim a divine mandate to dissolve their ties. "
Though "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," are not so consistent with covenant theology (as already explained by making the distinction between God and Nature), the essence of the idea is there. In Puritan terms, King George broke his end of the bargain by going against higher law (which is, according to Wald at least, God), and therefore America had a duty of sorts to break the compact.
In the first paragraph of the Declaration, then, we have a sense of where Jefferson's ideas came from. He borrows a little from Locke and a little from the ideology already so deeply entrenched in New England. Simply put, the compact between the colonies and the king of England, as sanctified by deified Nature, was broken by the king, and was therefore null. The colonists hence had a right to declare independence.
However, Jefferson is vague when he explains his influences. He acknowledges that he was not creating anything new, he was simply stating the general opinion of the American public at the time. In a letter to Henry Lee in 1825, he explains,
"When forced therefore to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. 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 [were co]mpelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonising sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversns, in letters, printed essays or in the elementary books of public right as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c" (Ginsberg, 32-3).
Jefferson admits that he was influenced by Locke, but he also clearly states that he was more influenced by the American sentiment of the time. Social contract theory, though now under the guise of a remnant of Puritanism, had permeated church sermons, so that Americans heard this philosophy preached to them on a weekly basis. Though the Puritan civilization had long since died out, New England society was still entrenched in Puritan ideas. Furthermore, many of the key intellectuals of the period were at least familiar with the works of Locke, Newton, and other European philosophers, and were therefore well aware of Natural rights theory. Jefferson, then, must not have consciously drawn from any specific work or body of philosophy; he simply put together the various related theories that floated around the American mind in the late eighteenth century. The result, therefore, is the Declaration of Independence, a document which utilizes all this theory to explain succinctly the justification for the colonies to break ties with England.
Works Cited
Anderson, Thornton. Development of American Political Thought. New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1961.
Becker, Carl L. "Historical Antecedents of the Declaration: The Natural Rights Philosophy." [Coursepack]
Beitzinger, A. J. A History of American Political Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
Dienstag, Joshua Foa. "Serving God and Mammon: the Lockean Sympathy in Early American Political Thought," American Political Science Review 90 (September 1996): 497-512.
Ginsberg, Robert, ed. A Casebook on the Declaration of Independence. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1967.
Hamburger, Philip A. "Natural Rights, Natural Law, and American Constiturions," Yale Law Journal 102 (January 1993): 907-960.
Kessler, Sanford. "Tocqueville's Puritans: Christianity and the American Founding," The Journal of Politics 54 (August 1992): 776-792.
Wald, Kenneth D. Religion and Politics in the United States. New York: St. Martins, 1987.
back to the poetry page
back to the main page
Email: fshk37@hotmail.com
