Tracing Jefferson’s Libertarian Thought in the Declaration of Independence

The period from 1765 to 1776 witnessed escalating political, constitutional, and military tensions between Great Britain and the American colonies. Much of the relevant history of this period can be read in Patrick Newman’s Cronyism, especially “The Path to American Independence” and “The American Revolutionary War: The Triumph of Liberty.”

Many colonial protests reflected an early form of constitutional resistance, as Americans increasingly argued that acts exceeding legitimate authority were unconstitutional and therefore lacked binding force. The Revolution itself was, in large part, a dispute over constitutional authority and the location of sovereignty within the British Empire.

Following decades of salutary neglect, Britain attempted after the French and Indian War (1754–1763) to tighten imperial administration, enforce mercantilist regulations, and raise revenue from the colonies. Colonists—accustomed to substantial self-government and autonomy—increasingly resisted these measures as violations of their rights and constitutional liberties.

All this led, eventually, to the Second Continental Congress where the Declaration of Independence was crafted, edited, and then officially published on July 4, 1776.

Common Myths and Misconceptions

There are many myths and misconceptions about the Declaration of Independence:

“The Declaration created our nation!” – America already existed as distinct colonies; the Declaration announced their separation from Britain, not a new nation;“The Declaration created America!” – The American colonies and their institutions existed long before 1776;“The Declaration gave us our first government!” – The states already had governments, and the Declaration created no new governing structure;“By the Declaration, America left Britain!” – The colonies themselves had to withdraw their allegiance to Britain; the Declaration announced and justified that decision to the world;The Declaration led to the Constitution – The Declaration was a radical revolutionary document announcing separation whereas the Constitution was a conservative, centralizing document promoting national consolidation

The Continental Congress was not a national government in the modern sense, but a temporary assembly of delegates appointed by the individual colonies (and later states) to coordinate a common response to British policies and, eventually, the Revolutionary War. Its authority was limited, derived from the consent of the colonies and state governments it represented, and it possessed no general sovereign power over them. The Congress could debate, recommend, petition, negotiate, and ultimately declare independence, but it lacked the authority to legislate for the states on most internal matters.

Consequently, the Declaration did not “create” an American nation, nor did it possess the power to abolish slavery, restructure state governments, or impose domestic policies on the states. The Declaration of Independence itself reflected the decision of the colonies—acting through their representatives—to dissolve their political ties with Great Britain and assume the status of “free and independent states.”

The Significance of the Declaration of Independence

While the Declaration of Independence did not necessarily invent or introduce entirely new political ideas, it is important to recognize that its publication was not merely the presentation of a theoretical political treatise. Rather, it was a formal declaration of secession from the most powerful empire in the world. By affixing their names to the document, the signers openly challenged British authority, knowing that failure would likely result in charges of treason, the loss of their property, imprisonment, or death. The Declaration was therefore not simply a statement of political principles but a bold revolutionary act that committed its authors and the colonies to a course of war and independence.

Further, while not entirely consistent in every respect, the Declaration of Independence—as an act of secession—can be understood as one of the earliest major challenges to centralized modern sovereign authority within the emerging nation-state system. Although it created new states rather than abolishing state power itself, it decentralized and imposed limits upon British imperial sovereignty through an appeal to self-government and national self-determination.

The Declaration & Natural Rights Theory

Obviously, to any knowledgeable reader, the Declaration is soundly based on Lockean natural rights theory, that is, that all human individuals possess pre-political, natural/God-given rights, and these rights define legitimate and illegitimate human interaction, including government.

In what is probably the most famous statement of the Declaration of Independence, it reads,

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.

Jefferson argued that:

All men are created equal

Humans do not owe their existence or being to other humans or governments. Jeffersonian “equality” means equality of liberty or equality before the law, not egalitarianism—unequal treatment, especially legal treatment, of individuals in an attempt to achieve equal opportunities and/or results.

On this distinction, Murray Rothbard wrote,

. . .the concept of equality achieved its widespread popularity during the classical-liberal movements of the eighteenth century, when it meant, not uniformity of status or income, but freedom for each and every man, without exception. In short, equality in those days meant the libertarian and individualist concept of full liberty for all persons.

Likewise, according to Roger Williams in Free and Unequal: The Biological Basis of Individual Liberty (also quoted by Rothbard),

. . .[the] “free and equal” phrase in the Declaration of Independence was an unfortunate paraphrase of a better statement contained in the Virginia Bill of Rights. . .“all men are by nature equally free and independent.” In other words, men can be equally free without being uniform.

In fact, to be consistent, to accept egalitarianism as a goal is to reject the equality of the Declaration of Independence; likewise, to accept the equality of the Declaration of Independence is to reject egalitarianism. Contrary to egalitarianism, classical liberal equality recognized that individuals were so unique and diverse that, rather than creating a custom-made standard for each person, each person should be equally free and viewed as the same before the law.

(Of course, we can acknowledge that the just ideals of equality of liberty and equality before the law were not consistently met in much of history. Regarding slavery, for example, it was the classical liberal worldview-paradigm and free market economics—among other factors—that began to put an end to slavery in the West. Instead of declaring all inconsistencies as hypocrisy, we should celebrate breaking from old paradigms because of a realization of the importance of liberty and rights of all people. It should also be noted that slavery was historically normal and free labor was the true “peculiar institution,” thus we should expect inconsistencies in a period in which historically-unusual changes of thought and practice begin to take place. Ironically, egalitarianism shares a common core ethical error with slavery itself—that legal castes of humans may be created and enforced against the freedom of others.)

Men possess pre-political, unalienable, negative rights

Humans, by their nature, have rights that exist prior to and independent of the state and other people. These rights cannot be surrendered, transferred, sold, or legitimately taken away because they are inherent to human beings by nature. These rights are negative in that they restrict aggression against them. These rights include life, liberty, and the limited, non-aggressive pursuit of happiness, as well as the right of self-ownership and property rights, which are inferred from the previous rights.

Jefferson may not have followed John Locke’s triad—life, liberty, and property—exactly because of the issue of slavery. If what Jefferson said about rights is the case, then slavery would be an evident denial of self-ownership. If one does not own himself, he cannot own others; if one is owned by others, his right to self-ownership is violated. In this context, to affirm “property” might risk entailing the right of legal protection of slave property, which would undermine his overall point.

Jefferson—via Locke—approximates a view of self-ownership, such that to deny self-ownership would result in a performative contradiction—one would have to use their ownership of their body and mind to deny the ownership of their body and mind. Though not explicit, this also provides a non-arbitrary foundation for defining violations of rights or crimes.

After this statement of natural rights, and after teasing out some implications, Jefferson moves logically to the nature and role of government.

The Role of Government

After discussing rights, Jefferson writes,

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.

In this section, Jefferson argued that:

Governments are instituted among men specifically to secure the aforementioned negative rights (and nothing else)

Governments are composed of humans with the same human nature as other men and possessing the same rights—no more and no less. Just as it is illegitimate and criminal for an individual or group of individuals to violate the rights of others, thus, it logically follows that it would be illegitimate and criminal for humans in government to violate the rights of others. Crimes are crimes whether committed by individuals, groups, or governments. Therefore, legitimate government ought to be limited to the legitimate collective defense of individual negative rights. To do otherwise would be to betray the purpose for which government was created.

Governments—like other ethically-legitimate forms of human interaction—are to be based on consent, not coercion

While not entirely consistent in this respect, Jefferson presents an unobjectionable concept—that non-coercive human interactions ought to be consensual to be considered just and legitimate.

This is not to say that force cannot be legitimately used against the consent of others in certain circumstances. For example, people can justly use force to protect themselves against an aggressor, even if the aggressor does not agree. Likewise, individuals and governments may also justly use force to defend and punish violations of the rights of others, though the extent is limited. In short, even government should be based on the consensual agreement of the people.

The Right to Alter or Abolish

What if government—instead of protecting individual negative rights—uses its power to violate rights?

If a government begins to violate rights instead of protecting them, it is the right of the people to alter (attempt to change) the government or abolish it, and to institute new government

If what Jefferson said about rights is true, and if it is true that the only proper and just role of government is to protect rights, then it follows that when a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created, it is engaged in illegitimate criminal activity and is unfit for purpose.

Jefferson warns that altering or abolishing government should not be approached lightly or rashly,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Keep in mind that Jefferson, the men at the Continental Congress, and many other Americans were literally putting their lives and freedoms on the line to declare these truths and independence.

The Right of Secession

Viewed in light of the modern Hobbesian nation-state, the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence were not merely a colonial rebellion against British policies, it was also a claim that a political community possesses the right to withdraw its consent from an existing political union and establish itself as an independent state without the permission of the state.

Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence,

. . .That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. . .

Did the Americans alter or abolish the British government?

In one sense, both; in another sense, neither. The Declaration of Independence did not primarily seek to reform, capture, or overthrow the British government. Instead, it took the path of political separation:

. . .it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. . .

. . .That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved. . .

Interestingly, many largely accept Jefferson’s statements about rights, liberty, consent, criminality, and the role of government, however, many come short of adopting Jefferson’s radical libertarian political convictions.