Founding philosophers

According to Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence was not a radical document. It was an announcement based on common sense, in “terms so plain and firm as to command [the world’s] assent” to actions the American colonies were soon to take. “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular of previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind.”

The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence (Encounter Books, 344 pp.) recaptures the moment in history that created our founding document. Hillsdale professor Matthew Spalding shows how political ferment merged with traditional thought in a room of forward-thinking men called together in Philadelphia. The time was exactly right: The Declaration probably could not have been written a half-century earlier, or a decade later. It came to light between the stable rule of kings and the revolutionary upheaval that overthrew kings.

The American mind was already well-formed long before the shooting started. Thirteen colonies had been governing themselves almost since their founding, with the English monarchy practicing, in Edmund Burke’s words, a “benign and salutary neglect.” The conflict known on this side of the Atlantic as the French and Indian War changed all that as, strapped for cash, Parliament began leaning on the colonies for more revenue to help pay for their own defense. High-handed tax laws led to colonial fury, which in turn led to monarchical overreaction in the form of “Intolerable Acts.” Open conflict flared with scattered shots on an April morning in Lexington, Massachusetts.

By June 1776, when delegates came together as a “Continental Congress,” George III had hired Hessian mercenaries and a fleet of British ships were sailing toward New York. Level heads like John Adams had hoped for a measured amount of force leading to diplomacy and independence, but events were ­moving too fast. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a resolution that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” What the moment demanded now was a formal statement of separation declared to the world.

Like a tour guide, Spalding walks readers through the document, pointing out key phrases and explaining their philosophical roots. As Jefferson said, the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles”—the principles already existed in the writings of both ancient (chiefly Aristotle and Cicero) and modern thinkers (like John Locke and Algernon Sydney). The Founders held a traditional view of history as “human events,” rather than the then-emerging conception of capital-H history as an irresistible tide. They appealed to “Nature’s God” not as “a diminution of God into nature (that would be pantheism) but a recognition of God’s laws over nature made evident by way of man’s reason.” Thus, “the human mind is capable of knowing the truth of things.”

Spalding delves into the Declaration’s ringing endorsement of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as the foundation of God-given individual rights, based on an understanding of human nature. An examination of the list of grievances against King George demonstrates how each would later be addressed in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the complaint against arbitrary acts by the king led to the Constitution’s complicated amendment process. The practice of quartering British troops in private homes, a nonissue today, was banned by the Third Amendment.

The narrative can be dry at times and breaking up page-long paragraphs could have made for easier reading. But the author packs a store of information into a relatively short book that includes notes and a reference copy of the Declaration. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1776, carrying Americans further away from their founding principles. The 250th anniversary of the Declaration is an ideal time to review our founding principles and be grateful for the men who articulated and fought for them.