Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:07]
Radio Free Hillsdale Hour Announcer
From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught, nurtured and honored, this is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners across the country.
- [00:25]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
The structure of the Declaration is actually a very classical structure. You begin by stating what is true, you end by actually declaring your independence. But in the middle, you gotta make your case, and the case is a prudential case.
- [00:39]
Scott Bertram
This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast network. That was Dr. Matthew Spaulding, professor in Constitutional Government and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government and at Hillsdale College's D.C. campus. His brand new book is the Making of the American the Story of Our Declaration of Independence. We go in depth with Dr. Spalding today about the Declaration and the making of the American mind. Dr. Spaulding, thanks for joining us.
- [01:13]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Great to be with you, Scott.
- [01:15]
Interviewer/Host
It is a pleasure to talk to you and especially around the release of this great new book. It's about the Declaration. You ask a question or make a point early on that I wanted to start with. And your earlier book is called We still hold these Truths. And in it you say you're falling back in love with the country. And in this book, you talk about the keys to developing a thoughtful and passionate love of country.
- [01:39]
Scott Bertram
How should we approach that?
- [01:42]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
That's a great question. And I intentionally start the book with that kind of that whole conversation, partially because the story of the Declaration actually is. It's a story, and the whole Founding is a story. The, the Declaration is kind of the central scene, if you will, this great drama of the Founding. And it's really, in many ways, key to understanding it, which is why I get into the particulars of the book. But behind that, there's this story, and it's not merely an academic exercise. It's not merely a past historical moment. There's something about it. There's something about the Declaration that is central to what we are, who we are, what we still are. And it's also connected to why we appreciate our country, why we defend our country, and ultimately why we love our country. And I wanted to address that very directly in the sense that idea is oftentimes criticized as being kind of, well, love of countries is kind of this silly patriotic chauvinism. But there's something actually deeply, more deeply profound about it that I wanted to address. And I used in that conversation a passage from Alexis de Tocqueville In Democracy America, he makes a distinction between what he calls reflective patriotism. By what she meant kind of that thoughtful patriotism of citizens who are understanding their country, as opposed to the patriotism he would associate with pride of place. Let's say I love my state, I love New York. Exactly. And he doesn't diminish that. That's important. And really, patriotism begins there. When you think of a child, right, it begins with your family, your culture, your community. And it grows outward as you learn about, say, your. Your ancestors or the fellow down the street who fought in the war. And then history adds a component to that, and you begin to realize there's this larger tradition. Well, reflective patriotism gets us towards that. You have to think about it, because that tradition has something to do with how we understand today our rights and our freedoms and our liberties. But it is a form of love. Augustine talks about this in his book the Confessions, which is, you can't really love something unless you know it, which, of course, we all know when you think of, again, children and family and things like that, or a book, for that matter. You got to know it to really love it. Well, if you want to love America, you've got to actually know it. It works both ways. And the thing we ought to love is it's people. It's history is important, but it's imperfect. There are flaws. We are flawed individuals and flawed people. But the thing we can love wholeheartedly is what it stands for, and that's the Declaration of Independence.
- [04:32]
Interviewer/Host
The prologue covers the story of how the Declaration came to be. And we could spend, and we have spent previously at length discussing this. So set this up a little bit for us. What do we need to know as we enter the making of the American mind?
- [04:48]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
I wanted to do that as a prologue precisely because what you've asked there. There are a number of things we need to know. There are things we need to learn again, or at least learn better, shall we say? Well, oftentimes when we study American history, especially the Founding, we think, okay, well, there's this Declaration, Jefferson wrote it. And then there's this little war, and then we wrote a Constitution. We just kind of jump from step to step and we don't realize some things, which is there's a whole really fascinating and dynamic and actively moving history about how we came to the Declaration. And that's part of the setup. The Second Continental Congress is called the Second. Because there was something called the First Continental Congress. The idea of Continental Congress, a legislature of all the colonies. They debate at great length. What do we do? We've got this problem with the British. We don't like being taxed. And now the king is doing all these things to us. What do we do? And so it builds and builds and builds. And there are actually debates. John Adams is a crucial figure. John Dickinson from Pennsylvania is actually a brilliant thinker. In principle, he's with them, but.
- [05:59]
He'S concerned about what might happen. So he opposes independence. And then there's a debate about independence separate from the debate than about the Declaration itself. So part of that is just that whole history leading up to it. I think the other great important thing to understand about this kind of. This setup, if you will, is Thomas Jefferson. So Jefferson comes in. He comes in actually late into the session. He's a replacement. He comes in with a reputation for as a good writer. He's written a couple of very important pamphlets. And he is immediately put on various committees. He writes some things. He's assigned to write things. And when it comes to the motion for independence, they immediately create a committee to draft a declaration. He's one of five, Adams and Franklin being the other, the important ones. There are two other figures that were less involved. And Adams convinces Jefferson he ought to write it. Jefferson does draft the Declaration. Jefferson is very important. I don't mean to say he's not important, but I emphasize here we have to understand the Declaration was written by Jefferson as the drafter of the document. He famously uses in a later letter that the Declaration is an expression of the American mind, which is actually where I get my book titled the Making of the American Mind. But Jefferson knew he was writing for a purpose, for the Continental Congress. It's edited by the committee, particular Franklin and Adams. And then it goes to the Congress. And the Congress spends two days editing it. It's cut down by. I think it's 25, 30, you know, a third or so. They rearrange sentences. They add some references to, for instance, divine providence and the sacred judge to give it more context. So they're very important things that happen in the creation of it that we ought to understand as opposed to this notion that like, you know, like the, you know, the Greek gods just kind of popping out of Zeus's head. It wasn't that.
- [08:00]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah. Dr. Matt Spalding with us. His new book is the Making of the American Mind. The very first chapter, you differentiate between two different meanings or dual meaning of the word independence. So how should we consider that word?
- [08:16]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
For one thing, we refer to this document as the Declaration of Independence. But I was struck by the fact that the word independence never actually occurs in the document. Indeed, the title, Declaration of Independence is something that's added, and it's a popularization, if you will.
- [08:31]
Interviewer/Host
Right.
- [08:31]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
It's a Declaration of the Continental Congress. Declaration is important. The word independence is important. Right. Later on, it refers to independence, these independent states. And why is that? And you start kind of thinking through these questions. One of the things I do in the book is kind of really kind of closely examine the text itself. And what do we know about the use of words? And what do they mean? What's the history behind them? And by 1776, independence has come to mean two things. And the duality of that meaning is actually, throughout the Declaration, the immediate notion of independence is the one we think of, which was they were declaring their independence from England. They were separating, as it says, at the very beginning of the Declaration. And then they give their reasons for separation, which is what the Declaration does. But at the same time, simultaneously, they meant independence to be the active creation of another independent entity, in this case, a people who are declaring themselves a nation, a nation that was being born and had to come into existence, but it's there. So by Declaration of Independence, they mean both of these things separating from England, but also at the same time, creating this new thing which is going to be an independent nation with the rights to do things that independent states may have Right do. So part of the. As we read it, we've got to read it with both those things in mind.
- [09:51]
Interviewer/Host
Talk about the education of the Founders and the effect, the influence of the classical tradition on the American founders, what they knew, what they read, what they learned. And then you say Cicero is by far the most influential classic thinker on the Americans. So where do we see that influence?
- [10:09]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Well, first of all, the broad point you're asking about the Declaration begins with a general reference to history when in the course of human events. And so that begs the question, what do they understand to be the role of history in shaping the American mind? So I spend some time looking at both English history, their immediate history, but also the history going back to the ancients, the classics. And those were much more influential than I think we commonly think of. And a lot of that has to do with this guy named Cicero, the great Roman statesman, Cicero. But in general, the American education system at the time of the founding was still shaped by what was the kind of the old way of education coming out of Europe, which was still largely classical. And as a result, they learned Latin and Greek and they studied history. And the Latin and Greek they studied drew them to the classics. So to learn Greek, what you would normally read was the Bible. It was the most, the greatest Greek writing in history. And to learn Latin, you would overwhelmingly read Cicero because he was the great writer of Latin, but also a great and clear writer of Latin. So Cicero is the most influential in that sense. But the more broad, the broader point is the classics, especially Aristotelianism and Aristotle, which is the teacher of Cicero, and then Cicero and Cicero on the laws is thinking about laws is highly influential to the whole British legal tradition. There's a line of thinking there that comes from the classics directly through and into the founding era. That's very important for us to understand.
- [11:53]
Interviewer/Host
Talking with Dr. Matthew Spalding, his new book is the Making of the American Mind, the Story of Our Declaration of Independence. It's engaging to read. You tackle, wrestle with some of the phrases inside the Declaration of Independence. And one you spend some time on is this phrase the laws of nature and nature's God. What was the purpose of using that phrase in the Declaration?
- [12:17]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Another very important phrase, it's in the first paragraph and it's the thing they refer to as, if you will, a standard to justify their declaring independence, which remembers, you recall, as this twofold meaning. And they have a right to do this as a nation.
- [12:36]
Claiming its equal status as an independent nation according to the laws of nature and of nature's God. To make a long, much longer story short, that phrase is often read to be anti religious or at least non religious, introducing kind of, well, nature's God. We all know that's not religion God. And so this is one of the phrases that's been used a lot to kind of secularize, if you will, the Declaration. But I wouldn't go back and want to really think that through and dig about what it means. And a number of things come to the fore, one of which is they're saying there's a standard. There are these laws and the laws have two groundings. Laws of nature and of nature's God. It's two things. It's one thing that has two parts. Laws of nature is actually a phrase used throughout the tradition, by which I mean now the classical tradition, but also the Christian tradition, the laws of nature, natural law. It's a rational tradition, but it's a rational tradition understood within this kind of classical or created order. It's, you know, there's a long tradition of that. And then this laws of nature's God reminds us that the references to God of which there are several four, strikingly in the Declaration. This is the first one. There's a God of nature. This is not kind of pagan tree worship. This is meant to say that there is a God that is the lawmaker of the laws of nature. It actually is a theory, theological reference here. And indeed, the phrase nature's God, I trace it back to Pope, the great English writer who uses the phrase to go to move from the laws of nature through the laws of nature up to nature's God. It is really a theological meaning. I think that's Jefferson's first reference, which will then carry out and become even more theologically important in the Declaration.
- [14:37]
Interviewer/Host
Let's step back just a little and ask who was the intended audience of the Declaration? And there's each other colonists, Great Britain, rest of the world. But who were they really writing this for?
- [14:51]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
That's a great question, too. And here's one where I always tell my students, you read the Declaration a million times. It's quoted all the time. We usually know the more famous phrases. But go back and actually read through it, and this would be an example of that, because the audience question doesn't become clear until you actually read through the whole thing. Because at the beginning of the Declaration, it's actually not clear at all who they're talking to. And actually it's not clear at all who's writing the thing. It only becomes clear if you will. And there, I think the question ultimately is, well, is their audience England? Well, that's who they're technically sending it to, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient. They clearly are making reference to the opinions of mankind. They have a broader audience in mind, which in the vercular means they were laying down principles for broader consideration, including over time, then and as well as today. So they had a very broad sense of that audience in practical terms. I actually conclude that the domestic audience is actually quite important. The Declaration is immediately sent over to Europe to the agents, the colony's agents in England, and they request it be translated into other languages, in particular French, so they could get to the French court. They're clearly trying to get to the influence of the French. Well, that copy of the Declaration was. The ship was boarded and it was tossed overboard. So as a result, it wasn't literally until months later that this happened. Indeed, the French got it on their own and translated it and knew about it. So the point being is that that was important, but it wasn't immediately important. The more immediate thing, which the Continental Congress immediately instructed them to do, was to make copies of the Declaration. And they made them that night, the night of July 4th, morning of July 5th, they printed what is called the Dunlap broadside. And the immediate target was they are to go to all the states, all the provincial legislatures, and to Washington and his armies in the field. So it was really to tell the domestic audience, we have declared independence. We are a nation. Go forward.
- [17:03]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah. I recently read the Declaration aloud at an event here on Hillsdale's campus, and something struck me near the end, which is this audience question. There's a section that begins, nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. And so there's a paragraph here where they're addressing their fellow at this point, you know, the British citizens, what are they saying to them? What do they feel is their, I guess, responsibility to address them in this document?
- [17:28]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Yeah, that particular paragraph kind of always kind of threw me for a loop. Why is it there? It's actually not about the British brethren.
- [17:38]
They have appealed to them, they've sent them separate communications to the people of England. But that paragraph, when you read it, is really setting up a distinction between they've just renounced the King, he has done all these things, and now they turn and there's reference to the British brethren. But that paraphrase really is establishing a we they distinction. So the movement of that paragraph really is really more about them, meaning the Americans. We refer to them as our British brethren, which, nice turn, says they are. We are literally brethren, but we're not the same people. We are a people.
- [18:15]
Fortunately, we're going our separate way. So when you read it and read through it, the movement of the document is a slightly different story. And so it actually, it doesn't seem to be a throw off. It actually serves a purpose because once you've done this, once you've attacked the King, but before you formally declare your independence, what is the one thing you need to establish that's kind of implied from the very beginning that the Americans have become and are a people. And as a people, they can declare their independence and they can be a Nation.
- [18:53]
Scott Bertram
Talking with Dr. Matthew Spalding. His brand new book is the Making of the American Mind. And we hope you're enjoying the interview. If you are, you can tell us directly and let your voice be heard. Take the Hillsdale College Podcast Network's first listener survey at podcast hillsdale.edu. click the survey when it pops up. The Hillsdale College Podcast Network reaches millions of Americans with the learning, teaching and discussions that happen right here on Hillsdale's Campus. You can help us reach millions more Americans with your feedback. Visit podcast hillsdale.edu. click on the Pop up to take the survey. Tell us what you like and maybe what you don't like about this show and others on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. Thanks for your feedback and thank you for listening. We continue now with Dr. Matthew Spaulding, Vice President of Washington Operations and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale in D.C. also author of the new book the Making of the American the the Story of Our declaration of independence. Dr. Spalding, one of my favorite little.
- [20:03]
Interviewer/Host
Parts in the book is when you note that the authors, Jefferson and others, they don't say, we have some opinions about things here, right? They say we hold truths to be self evident. So why is that an important phrase?
- [20:17]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Well, part of it. In this day and age, we have so much, all this language.
- [20:21]
Interviewer/Host
They didn't say, this is my truth, right?
- [20:23]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
That's right. There's none of that here. So on one hand it's, we've heard these phrases a million times, but just think about it for a moment. We hold these truths to be self evident. The first paragraph is kind of slow in the course of human events and then boom. Jefferson is an excellent writer. He's using short paragraph, a short syllabus, or, excuse me, monosyllabic words and longer words.
- [20:48]
Interviewer/Host
The effect really, really good for broadcast, by the way.
- [20:50]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
We hold these truths to be self evident. It's got an intensity to it. That's part of it. But what is the intensity? We hold these truths. You're right, they didn't say we have some opinions. The British have their opinions. We have our values, they have value. This is not kind of moral neutrality. This is not subjectivism. This is not merely kind of consensus.
- [21:15]
Political. No, no, no. They're arguing this is one of the radical ideas, meaning radicals and rootedness, radical ideas of the Declaration, which is, no, there are certain things that the human mind can actually know. There are fundamentals that can be known as truths, and of those truths there are certain ones that we hold so dear because they are self evident. If you understand the thing, you understand what we're talking about. And they choose to begin there, which of course they weren't thinking about the modern world in which we live, because. But that tells us they're not of that modern world. It signals that we are now in a different world, if you will. We're in a world where we can know things. The mind is capable of knowing things which say it's a world of metaphysical freedom, which is. And that's the gift, if you will. That's the great accomplishment of the American founding, which we've largely lost.
- [22:17]
Everything is value free. It's the moral relativism. That's not what they're talking about when.
- [22:23]
Interviewer/Host
It comes to rights, inequality and slavery. You argue the Declaration contains the principle that would drive slavery toward extinction. So do we think this was intentional on behalf of the authors?
- [22:38]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Slavery, of course, is one of the great confusions of American history, in particular the Founding, in particular the Declaration and the Constitution. And it's deeply misunderstood and misused.
- [22:51]
Slavery was and is very barbaric. They all knew that. You really can't find in the writings of the Founders a defense of slavery as such. If you know history, right. The defense of slavery comes up later in the 1830s and 40s, that is the Antebellum South. But at the time of the Founding, it was, you know, it was understood to be barbaric and we don't like it. And they were generally of the opinion that it was going to go away. It was dying out. The economics of slavery were not that good. The cotton gin had been invented, among other things. So there, there was a clause in the Declaration, among the grievances that Jefferson wrote condemning the king for imposing slavery on us. And then it kind of made some other observations about the British under war time, condemning the British under wartime for freeing slaves. So it was kind of a very confused section that I think they took out primarily because it kind of made mixed signals. And two colonies said, I won't sign the Declaration if you put it in there. Having said that, they kept in the first of the self evident truths that all men are created equal. And they all knew what that meant. Did they free them immediately? No, it's actually not clear that they had the power to free them immediately. The Continental Congress had, almost immediately prior to the Declaration for a second time, outlawed the slave trade. So they were clearly conscious of the problem. The abolitionists later looked exactly to the human equality as the source of their abolition or one of the sources of their political argument for abolitionism. So I think they actually put it there and left it there with the intention of ultimately undermining human slavery, which clearly is the movement going on. I mean, Washington owned slaves, for instance. And. But by going through the Founding, meaning the debates, the Revolution, dealing with this question, before him, he had blacks in his army. He ultimately frees his slaves, or the slaves held in his estate, which was largely from his wife. He frees them upon her death in his will. So look, I think, you know, yes, slavery was terrible. It's a messy history. It's an imper. It's an imperfect history. They had to put up with something that they would prefer and we would all prefer historically was not there. But having said that. Right. The beauty of it, the tale really going back to this idea of the story, is that a nation so divided, including abolitionists, but also pro slavery figures who own slaves, the amazing thing here is they actually began their declaration by saying the first thing that is true and self evident is that all men are created equal. That's dynamite.
- [25:50]
Interviewer/Host
There are any number of things or values that create could have been mentioned in the Declaration of Independence specifically. And of course, they choose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why are those three things specifically named in the Declaration?
- [26:08]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Yeah, I spend time on all three of them both individually. And why those three in particular? So this is actually something that's always intrigued me. So, for instance, the right to property, which is a fundamental right, one could say as much of a natural right as the others, is not mentioned. Nor is religious liberty, which clearly by all the founders was considered a fundamental right, indeed oftentimes referred to as a natural right. But they chose those three. Why? Well, I think it goes into what they meant by what is life? What is liberty? What is the pursuit of happiness? So part of it is understanding what each of the terms mean and then how they go together. And I think the short answer is that you need to think of the three as a whole. It's kind of life's the very definition of living, activity, birth, beginning, liberty, what we do as human beings. And the pursuit of happiness, is it really a completion of life, if you will, both in terms of a. A general sense of that right, a life well lived, you know, having a family and you're maintaining your freedom and having, you know, your generations and investing, well, whatever it might be. But then if you put in theological terms, right, of course, you know, the preserve happiness means practicing your religious liberty in a way that comes to know, you know, the ultimate truth, which in a religious sense, specifically Christian sense, means once you've died, you will know the truth about God and you will be blessed with the beatific vision. But you can read it different ways. I think he wrote it with that intention, but clearly open to this larger reading. But the three things are a whole. The beginning of life, the middle of life, and the end of life. It's the human. These are the rites that encompass humanity.
- [28:06]
Interviewer/Host
Talking with Dr. Matthew Spalding, his Book the Making of the American Mind. And this discussion about whether we should refer to this as the American Revolution or the American Founding, and in particular inside the Making of the American Mind, the discussion or contrast, I guess, with the French Revolution and what the founders thought about the French Revolution.
- [28:30]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
There's several points at which I make a point of this because we do normally refer to it as the American Revolution, but it was clearly was not the French Revolution. And if you know anything about history, you know that they're very different, right? The American Revolution ends with a Constitutional convention which creates a constitution about the rule of law and one individual is elected to be president. It doesn't end with the guillotine and cutting people's heads off. And the general, in this case, in the French case, Napoleon making war on the rest of the world, there's clearly a difference. So it is part. There's some terminology. And so the reason of kind of bringing this question is to help make us think this through.
- [29:14]
The American Revolution, I suppose you could say it was a revolution in the sense that we threw off.
- [29:20]
The previous regime, the British regime.
- [29:25]
Under England. But this kind of goes back to our distinction about twofold meaning of independence. They threw one thing off, but simultaneously they created another thing. So I would argue the proper terminology is the American Founding because that's the more important thing they did.
- [29:43]
Interviewer/Host
I've been at Hillsdale 10 years now, and one word that I've heard more here than I did in my previous years all combined, is the word prudence.
- [29:52]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Right.
- [29:53]
Interviewer/Host
I've learned a lot about it, and I've learned a lot about it by reading your work. So for people out there who aren't around Hillsdale and don't hear this phrase prudence all the time, tell us what it means and what the role of prudence was in the reasoning of a declaration.
- [30:08]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Well, that's a great point, and I do make some reference, but also very important. Emphasize that to a large extent, because it is so important.
- [30:23]
First, the context of the Declaration itself. Again, go back and read it, right? We know the famous phrase we all these truths be self evident. And then it goes through four different things, right? These rights which we've talked about, governments, are based on consent.
- [30:40]
And if a government does not uphold those rights, doesn't secure these rights, people have a right to alter or abolish it and institute a new government. Those are the things that are self evident. But then the very next word, the very next sentence, all that previous part is one sentence. The very next sentence begins with one word. Prudence. Prudence will dictate what to do. And I was like, that's kind of striking. And almost. It's almost like a road bump. I'm just getting warmed up. We're going. And all of a sudden, boom. Prudence will dictate. It introduces this other concept that's not by mistake. So prudence, I'm sure many people know and will recall, is one of the cardinal virtues, the great cardinal virtues, all classical history and Christian history, that for that. For that matter, wisdom, courage, moderation. Prudence. Prudence plays the role, a very particular role between things that are true, simply the things for which we seek wisdom. But, you know, that doesn't necessarily tell us what to do. Courage, which is a moderation or the proper use of our passions, if you will. And moderation, which is the moderation of our passions, needs something to help inform them. And that's the role of prudence. Prudentia. And it's kind of this gateway, if you will, this bridge between principles, simply truths and actual decision about what to do, what to do in the particular moment. Prudence is considered to be the virtue of statesmanship. It's the political virtue. And by reintroducing that word in the middle of the Declaration, that was clearly, clearly intentional and meaningful. As a matter of fact, there's a great debate at the Continental Congress between Dickinson and Adams about prudence. What's the prudent thing to do? Again, we kind of read through it quickly. We don't get.
- [32:35]
Tells me that the structure of the Declaration is actually a very classical structure. You begin by stating what is true. You end by actually declaring your independence. But in the middle, you got to make your case. And the case is a prudential case. It's not obvious, it's not immediate, doesn't happen on its own. Got to make your case. Well, it's grievances. It's long train of abuses. Prudence will dictate what to do.
- [33:01]
Interviewer/Host
So the grievance there, this long grievance section inside the Declaration, is it important to consider that grievance section on its own, in addition to seeing that the lines drawn from. From those grievances to the new government they want to set up in the country.
- [33:18]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
The Declaration. You remember this from school and class, or you look at. We remember the first part, and then we quote the last part. But then there's this long section. The longest part of the whole document is the list of grievances, and there's this long list of grievances against the king. They are Actually extremely important. So if you think of the Declaration as a legal document, this is where the prosecutor in this case, the Continental Congress, is making its. Is putting forward its case against the King. Well, they're crucially important, indeed. They're so important that the English, what they responded to was actually the grievances, not the claim of all men being created equal. They kind of said, ah, that's nonsense, but it's the grievances. And so I actually spent a whole chapter going through the grievances and thinking that through. And is there a pattern here? Because it just seems like just a long list of things. Some very familiar, he's denied our consent for taxation, and then some very obscure that you're actually not even completely sure exactly what it refers to. And so I go through that and try to dig and find the history of each clause and what it means and what the grievances are, and then more generally, what's the pattern? And it kind of falls into three broad categories. One category is how the king has abused his power, meaning he has the power to do this, but he's abusing it. And then there's another list of the King's usurpations of power, which is, say that how he has essentially usurped the parliamentary power, the legislative power, which in turn is the American legislative power. How's he usurped legislative power under the kingship to do things. And then the last part is how he has basically gone to war against the American people. Among other things, we will famously recall hiring Hessian mercenaries, burning villages, capturing Americans on the high seas, and making them fight in the British Army. He's kind of turned to the barbaric arts, if you will.
- [35:19]
Interviewer/Host
Talking with Dr. Matthew Spalding, the new book, the Making of the American the Story of Our Declaration of Independence, you affirmed for us earlier, the Founders clearly understand Americans to be a people in a distinct way from the British people. How would they perhaps define that quickly? How would they say, clearly, we are a people here, we are not a people with you anymore.
- [35:44]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Right. Well, I kind of go through this. This has always struck me as an interesting question as well. And one of the things becomes clear in the Declaration, but also in the earlier pamphlets, say, by Jefferson and others, and other writings of the Continental Congress, when they referred to the British, they referred to them as, say, British brethren. When they refer to people, that word is always used for Americans which say they had a different understanding of what people meant for the British. The British understood themselves to be subjects of the King. They didn't understand people in a political sense as an entity that has an opinion. Right? They're subjects, so they're still our brethren. We're related to them. They're our ancestors. But they're not actually a people in the terms of the Declaration at all. We are a people. Why? Because we recognize that all of us have these rights equally according to the laws of nature and nature's God. And we are, as a citizenry, forming a nation based on that. And besides, we have gone through and suffered and fought a war and had our villages burned, and all of these things, all of those things come together as a practical matter and form us, meld us into a people in a way that has really formed this nation.
- [37:03]
Interviewer/Host
So we all know the beginning, we all know the end, and we'll conclude our conversation with the end pledging lives, fortune, and sacred honor.
- [37:12]
Scott Bertram
How.
- [37:13]
Interviewer/Host
How should we consider the way that the Declaration ends?
- [37:17]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Well, first of all, talk about a classic ending. It is probably, in my opinion, actually in the opinion of many historians and others who have written about this, it's probably the most beautiful sentence in the whole Declaration. It really is a powerful sentence. And I would suggest that that's the electricity, if you can imagine reading it and getting to that ending. But the other thing we need to think about is how does that. It's clearly three things lies. Fortune, sacred honor. It's clearly meant to compare to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, but it's different. And so we want to think that through. And the other thing to think about is at the very end, it's now been identified who it is that's writing this Declaration. They've already declared the independence, which say the act is already done. And they add this last sentence, and it's we, the representatives, it's the people in that room who has signed the document, they are pledging to each other. And then we're used to the word our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. And then of course, the other thing that is electrifying there is that just again, Jefferson's wonderful with words, right? Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, it's just boom. So it's really kind of a mic drop moment that simultaneously enters, introduces honor, which is a very powerful human motivator of high magnitude. But honor, that is sacred, both in terms of religious sense of the word. Sacred is sacred before God, but also it makes the activity itself the honorable thing of supporting this declaration itself. Sacred. It raises it.
- [38:56]
Interviewer/Host
Yeah. So introducing honor, sacred honor here underscores it's something much more important than what's going to happen tomorrow. Or perhaps someone might benefit from the independence financial concern. All that is sort of wiped to the side because it's much bigger and more important when you begin inserting a phrase like that in the document.
- [39:21]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
No, that's true again. Go back and read it again. This is part of to refer back to my beginning about falling in love again.
- [39:32]
The story is a compelling story, and you have to understand they're writing this Declaration literally. The Declaration is being debated on the floor of the Continental Congress at precisely the same moment that English ships are arriving in New York Harbor. And so it's imminent. And so it's a very powerful moment. And it's exactly at that moment that they pledge their lives, fortunes and their honor. The words here are not these are not merely the rhetorical words of a Jefferson who writes and likes his language, although he's a beautiful writer. These are the words of a Continental Congress, of a bunch of men who then go on to fight in the revolution, who are thinking about the things, the highest things, at precisely the most dangerous moment in their lives. And that makes it something that we oftentimes forget, which is why it's lovable.
- [40:26]
Interviewer/Host
Dr. Matthew Spalding is dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College and vice president of Washington Operations, too.
- [40:34]
Scott Bertram
The brand new book is the Making.
- [40:35]
Interviewer/Host
Of the American the Story of Our declaration of independence. Dr. Spalding, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
- [40:45]
Scott Bertram
That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Dr. Matthew Spaulding, his book, the Making of the American Mind. Remember, you can hear new episodes every week on this station. You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews or listen anytime to the podcast. Find it at Podcast hillsdale. Edu or wherever you get your audio. Until next week, I'm Scott Bertram, and this has been the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
- [41:14]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
It.