WH2 Enlightenment 2: The High European
Enlightenment, the Enlightenment in America, and the
Declaration of Independence as an Example of
Enlightenment Thought
Part I: Essential Questions
1.
2.
As an alternative to traditional revealed religion, why was Deism considered to be such an
attractive alternative by Enlightenment philosophes?
Knowing what you do about the Enlightenment, on what basis would you argue for/against the
proposition that the United States Declaration of Independence is an Enlightenment-inspired
document?
Part II: Primary Source Material and Classnotes
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.
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776
Secondly: I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs.
Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty
will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and
artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what
they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse
themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which
government was at first erected...
John Locke, Concerning Civil Government, 1693
Locke’s little book on government is perfect as far as it goes.
Thomas Jefferson, 1790
1) To fully understand the Enlightenment, it must be
understood that its goal was not SKEPTICISM (i.e., it is
not possible to know anything) but rather, just as it was
during the medieval period, CERTAINTY. However, as
opposed to the MIDDLE AGES, the starting point for
certainty was NOT the AUTOMATIC AUTHORITY of
the CHURCH and ARISTOTLE, but rather REASON,
beginning perhaps from the standpoint of CARTESIAN
RATIONALISM with the only certainty that can be
known, which is our own existence based on the fact that
we think, which we in turn know because we DOUBT. No
longer would submission to AUTHORITY and then the
arrangement of naturalistic observations to support that
authority be the model for understanding nature, but
rather REASON and ANALYSIS preceded by the careful
observation of NATURE.
2) The Enlightenment question distills down to
EPISTEMOLOGY; that is, how do we know what we
know and what are the STANDARDS by which we obtain
that knowledge? Do we comprehend nature by starting
with those pre-ordained truths that are provided by
TRADITION and AUTHORITY and then limit ourselves
to explaining all observations of nature in a manner
consistent within this medieval framework, or do we
follow the EVIDENCE as interpreted by our REASON to
whatever conclusions they might lead even if they
INVALIDATE what authority an tradition tells us is
TRUE?
3) We saw earlier how Galileo’s use of the telescope around
1610 resulted in observations that finally DESTROYED
Aristotle’s model of the universe, and note again that
around 1620 Francis Bacon published his NOVUM
ORGANUM, in which he argued that the authority of
Aristotle and medieval logic should be permanently
tossed aside, and use reason to INTEGRATE their
experience is such a way as to discover the true order of
nature. “The” Enlightenment was in full swing, but
remember—although it would spread throughout
Continental Europe, England, Scotland, and America, it
wasn’t the FIRST movement to assert the primacy of
REASON as apposed to tradition and authority for
understanding the ordering of nature---remember the
IONIAN Enlightenment?
4) Like the earlier Enlightenment in the 17th Century, the
18th century European Enlightenment (a) did NOT view
automatic authority, tradition, and REVEALED
RELIGION as the basis of certainty; instead they
relegated this power to the realm of REASON; (b) did
NOT view Aristotle as providing a model for
understanding the workings of the universe, but instead
viewed the universe as governed by RATIONAL LAWS
which reason could discover; (c) believed that HUMAN
BEHAVIOR, including the very complex realms of
POLITICS and SOCIAL THEORY, were also governed
by lawful principles which reason could comprehend; by
effectively engineering the ENVIRONMENT human
society could be significantly improved; (d) optimistically
exalted SECULAR values; that is, concern with the
HERE AND NOW instead of the HEREAFTER.
5) Humanity was now viewed as having the technological
and intellectual wherewithal to better its own condition;
applied reason was therefore channeled from exclusively
scientific pursuits to human affairs. This tradition started
with Frances Bacon’s 1627 publication of his work
entitled NEW ATLANTIS which demonstrated how
scientific principle applied to society could result in the
betterment of human life to produce a UTOPIA.
6) With the ready availability of multitudes of published
BOOKS, NEWSPAPERS, PAMPHLETS, etc. on
virtually every topic which were easily available to the an
increasingly WEALTHY (mainly in England and France
via new markets opened by the east-west
TRANSATLANTIC TRADE routes) bourgeoisie with
leisure time to contemplate intellectual issues, the 18th
century saw the emergence of a very highly educated and
far less tradition-bound MIDDLE CLASS, whereas
previously the acquisition of such knowledge had been the
domain of court philosophers operating under a longestablished system of ROYAL PATRONAGE.
7) And so, for example, instead of falling under the exclusive
province of VERSAILLE and other royal courts
throughout Europe, Enlightenment intellectual life
gravitated to SALONS in cities such as PARIS and
LONDON, there to be propagated by a kind of
intellectual free-lancer known as a PHILOSOPHE, of
which VOLTAIRE is perhaps the best-known example;
DIDEROT and his encyclopedia ranks as important here
as well since what comprised essentially the ENTIRE
KNOWN BODY OF KNOWLEDGE us to that time was
now easily available to a wealthy middle class. However,
countries like GERMANY and ITALY which did not
have such easy access to these new trade routes remained
stronger adherents to TRADITION, the result being that
they were far more likely to see the Enlightenment as an
ASAULT on established order especially when its
thinkers attacked the CHURCH.
8) A dangerous ABSTRACTION was now in the works.
DEISTS, for example, saw God as being revealed through
the laws of nature: to understand the physical laws of the
universe and to comprehend their underlying
mathematics was to know the mind of GOD. Similarly,
PANTHEISM held that God wasn’t reflected through his
creation of the natural world; God IS nature, and so by
experiencing nature one was also experiencing and
therefore getting to know GOD. Both Deism and
Pantheism rejected ORTHODOX Christianity as
IRRATIONAL.
9) Questions therefore began to arise that were reminiscent
of the REFORMATION: If we can know God through
the direct experience of NATURE and an understanding
of the laws that govern it, then why do we need the
church? What value do the clergy add to society? Is it
RATIONAL to continue supporting this institution? The
church itself didn’t help the situation, as Diderot’s
encyclopedia was placed on the index of BANNED
BOOKS and secular reform was opposed by it at
virtually every turn.
10)
For Enlightenment theorists, the next logical step
following their criticism of REVEALED RELIGION, the
clergy, and the institution of the CHURCH was to argue
for the irrationality of DIVINE RIGHT MONARCHY.
What was rational about believing that God had
ORDAINED a specific family to rule an entire nation and
had handed authority down to them across generations
on a golden platter?
11)
Much here began to b evaluated within the context
of John Locke’s argument that humanity, possessing
REASON, had NATURAL RIGHTS consisting of LIFE,
LIBERTY and PROPERTY; government itself was a
contractual relationship that required YIELDING some
individual freedoms for the protection of these rights. If
government breaks this contract, then it could and should
be overthrown.
12)
Towards the middle of the 18th century,
Montesquieu argued that there must be a system of
CHECKS and BALANCES on the power of the monarch;
this obviously DID NOT play well in ABSOLUTIST
circles and yet were CRITICAL for Jefferson as he cast
the Declaration of Independence, which we now take the
time to read in its entirety so that we can come to
comprehend it as an ENLIGHTENMENT DOCUMENT:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and
such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is
a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object
the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this,
let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for
the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation
in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants
only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole
purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to
be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation,
have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining
in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to
Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
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 kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the
Civil Power.
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:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its
Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for
introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to
bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have
been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold
them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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; and that as Free and
Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and
Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support
of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and
our sacred Honor.
13)
There are many important attributes that stand out
in this document, both for what it DOES and what it
DOES NOT contain. Of hugely significant status is the
document’s appeal to REASON through the
ENUMERATION of the causes of the separation from the
mother country. Also defining this text as an
ENLIGHTENMENT document is its positive,
enthusiastic view of humanity created equal…endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Life
wasn’t a burden to be borne in anticipation of the
AFTERLIFE as defined by the traditions of authority
and revealed religion, but rather a STATE OF
HUMANITY during which striving for happiness was an
entirely appropriate and achievable GOAL.
14)
To the extent that government FAILED to promote
and support these goals among its citizenry, it could be
MODIFIED or OVERTHROWN, and here we see the
obvious influence of LOCKE on JEFFERSON.
15)
And yet, despite the presence and influence of
GIANTS of the American Enlightenment such as
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, the Declaration of
Independence doesn’t elevate SLAVES to the level of
those persons who are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, with many subsequent
analyses suggesting that having done would have
ALIENATED slave holding colonies without whose
support the Revolution could have neither been
FOUGHT not WON.