I. Structure of the Declaration
II. "When, in the course . . ."
III. "We hold these truths . . ."
IV. The Evidence
V. The Conclusion
Questions and Activities

I: Structure of the Declaration

It should come as no suprise that the Declaration of Independence, whose signers were heirs to the rationalist traditions of the seventeenth century Age of Reason and the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment, is written in the form of an argument. It begins with a statement of premises and assumptions, and then lists evidence to support those premises in the series of claims beginning with "He" (in reference to King George of England). One of these claims, dealing with disruption of the legal system, is further supported with evidence in a secondary series of claims, beginning with "for." [To make this clear, in this web-version of the Declaration, all these supporting claims have been set off as separate passages (in the original there is no paragraphing at all); further, some punctuation and spelling has also been regularized or modernized here.] Having asserted its premises and itemized its evidence, the Declaration then proceeds to draw its conclusion, introduced by that clearest of conclusion indicators, "therefore."

The logical structure of the Declaration does not make it a dry or predictable document, however. Like all great arguments, this one is full of surprising, controversial, and--yes--revolutionary ideas. In fact, the logical form of the Declaration, so clear that almost anyone could follow the argument, is an expression of the democratic assumptions on which it is based.

II: "When, in the course . . ."

Those democratic assumptions can be seen in the first sentence of the Declaration, which explains why the American colonists decided the explain their position, instead of just beginning the rebellion. Though the reason may sound obvious, or even trite, today, having a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" was something knew in the European politics of the time, where the only opinions that were considered to matter were those of the hereditary aristocracy and the upper-middle class--the ruling elite. That first sentence also talks about "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," another revolutionary democratic notion, since such laws would be apparent de-mystify the workings of the world to the average individual; formerly, the traditional belief was that the king and his nobles ruled by divine right, but the Declaration asserts that humanity, like the natural world, operates under laws which even a king must obey.

III: "We hold these truths . . ."

"Truths" that are "self-evident" are premises that need no support, and the claims that follow were, for the signers of the Declaration, the most revolutionary and the most important general principles:

We can restate this in the form of a chain argument: Given this valid chain of conditionals, in order to conclude that the American colonists have a right to replace the British government with one of their own, one need only affirm any one of the three antecedents: that they are being treated unfairly, that their rights are not being protected, or that they no longer consent to being governed.

The trouble with such an argument, as the colonists realized, was that it seems to lead to anarchy, because it gives the people the right to abolish governments as often as they desire. As a result, the Declaration next qualifies that right, by suggesting that it would not be prudent to exercise it "for light and transient causes." Instead, they argue that British rule has been an on-going example of a particularly bad government; they would not otherwise be trying to replace it, but that they are being forced into the action. To "prove"--that is, to support--this contention, the Declaration's long list of wrongs is produced.

IV: The Evidence

The long list of charges brought against George III in the Declaration is of more political and historical than logical interest. We might simply note here that supporters of the British government would probably have disagreed with few of these facts; the disagreement would have been over whether these actions were, as is claimed, a violation of some implied contract between the governors and the governed. Crown supporters would have said, "Yes, the king has done all this, and he has a right to do so as king." American colonists would have said, "Yes, he has done all this, and therefore lost our consent to be governed by him." As with so many arguments, the disagreement goes back to the premises. The British government of the time did not agree that it needed the consent of its subjects in order to govern them; nor did it think that its subjects had absolute and inalienable rights. Yet these are exactly the "truths" that the Americans claimed to be "self-evident"--that is, not open for debate or negotiation. Is it any wonder that such a disagreement led to war?

V: The Conclusion

Having stated their argument and supported it with a long list of evidence, all that remains in the Declaration is for the colonists to draw their conclusion: "We, therefore ... publish and declare, that these united colonies are ... FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES." That is, that they have withdrawn their consent to be ruled by Britain, and have chosen to replace its government with one of their own devising.

Questions and Activities

A. Based on the criteria expressed in the Declaration of Independence, decide which of the following is permissible, and why. (Though you can find a lot of information on these subjects on the web, you should understand that much of it is distorted or erroneous.)

  1. The secession of southern states prior to the Civil War.
  2. Civil disobedience as a tactic in civil rights and anti-war movements.
  3. The rioting in Los Angeles after the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
  4. Interference in the operations of abortion clinics by anti-abortion protesters.
  5. The creation of "common law" courts by such groups as the Posse Comitatus and the Montana Freemen.

B. Though the evidence provided in the Declaration is fairly specific, many of its "self-evident truths" are rather vague--perhaps intentionally so. Based on your reading of it, decide which of the following would be the best solution in the case of a colony prior to the American Revolution where only 40% of the population was in favor of (or opposed to) secession from Britain. (Keep in mind the notion that a government derives its power from the consent of those governed.)

  1. The colony should secede from Britain.
  2. The colony should not secede from Britain.
  3. The colony's territory should be divided as equitably as possible on the basis of public support for secession, with all those favoring secession moving into one area, to become independent, and all those opposed moving into the other area, to remain a colony of Britain.
  4. The colony's future should be decided by the majority, with the minority given the option of being exchanged with the minority population of another colony that reached the opposite decision.

C. What's the point of saying that certain "truths" are "self-evident." If they were really self-evident, would that have to be said?