The Declaration of Independence: A Secession Document Rooted in Heritage and Self-Government

As we Americans celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is worth remembering what it meant to the original Founding Fathers. There are many subversive theories about the country’s origins, such as the idea that it was founded by Masons who did not believe in traditional Christianity or that it was rich white men who wanted to establish their own hegemony. But no myth is as persistent and popular as the idea that Thomas Jefferson was interested in a creedal or propositional nation that boiled down to a shared interest in social equality. The Declaration of Independence’s actual original purpose was to announce the corporate separation of the thirteen colonies in defense of their inherited English rights within a Christian framework. Let me explain.

First, it is important to know that the Declaration was not Plan A. In July 1775, John Dickenson of Pennsylvania penned the Olive Branch Petition, in which a loyal Continental Congress appealed to King George III. It affirmed their desire to remain British subjects. They only wanted relief from acts like the Stamp Act, Quartering Act, and other measures that treated them as second-class citizens. Instead of cooperating with their requests, the king declared the colonies were in open rebellion, hired Hessian mercenaries, and made the conflict worse. At that point, independence became necessary. The fraternal bonds were dissolved.

Thomas Jefferson then wrote what would echo through the ages: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” In supporting this secession, Jefferson appealed to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and reminded the nations of the world that governments exist in the first place to secure rights endowed by the Creator. England’s “long train of abuses and usurpations” would come to an end.

However, if you read the Declaration, most of it focuses on the ways in which the British colonies of North America were treated unfairly by the king. The king, we find, obstructed justice by doing things like dissolving colonial legislatures, imposing taxes without consent, quartering troops, and even inciting slave insurrections and frontier attacks.

The document represents not individuals in a state of nature, but “States” in their corporate rights as thirteen colonies. This was further clarified by the Continental Congress in 1777 in response to land grantees who sought independence from New York because they believed their rights had been violated. Congress said: “Congress is composed of delegates chosen by, and representing the communities [of 13 separate colonies], as they respectively stood at the time of its first institution; that it was instituted for the purposes of securing and defending the communities aforesaid against [Britian].”

Today, Jefferson’s poetic preamble is used to justify more than the claims of land grantees. In the minds of modern liberals, it justifies everything from free public education to same-sex marriage. But this is a profound misreading.

Civil Rights, Not Abstract Egalitarianism

To understand the signers, we must know something about their historical context. Thomas Jefferson operated within an Anglo-Protestant tradition that distinguished natural rights, which were universal in a theoretical state of nature, from civil rights, which were particular and rooted in history, tradition, and social arrangements.

Founders like James Wilson, George Washington, and Gouverneur Morris emphasized that entering society required giving up some natural liberty to secure an ordered liberty within the constraints of society’s traditional arrangements. Jefferson himself said: “natural rights, may be abridged or modified in [their] exercise” according to the consent of the majority. Washington said: “Individuals entering into Society must give up a Share of Liberty to preserve the Rest.”

These statements are not anti-liberty, as some modern people, affected by liberalism, may think. They are in step with the negative liberties we see later reflected in the Constitution. The right to free speech, for example, was never understood as an absolute right by men who were familiar with blasphemy laws. We even have libel laws today that make an absolute conception of free speech untenable. Treason itself, referenced in the Constitution, often included speech. What one could do with impunity in a state of nature, where no one else would be impacted, was very different from what one could do in a civil society where actions affected others.

The deep and profound freedom that British Christians brought to the world was expansive, but it was also based on a shared belief in self-government and a universe ordered by God. Without those elements, it does not make sense. If we want to preserve our freedom, we must return to them.

In short, the Declaration was not an attempt to revolutionize society but a conservative defense of the British common law rights the Crown had violated. These rights were inalienable, not meant to be surrendered, and their end was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What We Celebrate

On July 4, we celebrate 250 years of independence. Our Founders risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for self-government. They were not novel theorists but practical statesmen defending their heritage. The Declaration closes by referencing “the Supreme Judge of the world,” lest there be any mistake that these were God-fearing people. It was never about blasphemy, degeneracy, or multiculturalism.

We continue their legacy as God-fearing, liberty-loving patriots by continually fighting for our own way of life, with the freedom to worship God, feed our families, and choose our leaders. This is part of the reason I will be releasing my album “Heritage” on July 4^th, to remember what this country is really all about.

Photo Credit: Unsplash