The Declaration of Independence was an important milestone in our national development, and its 250th anniversary is an appropriate time to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses as a body of doctrine. I would argue that its chief enduring merit was its proclamation that "all men are created equal."
I don't think its authors intended to exclude women from this point, since "men" frequently refers to the entire human race.
Distinguishing between these two possible meanings of “men” requires consideration of context.
The word obviously is inclusive in statements like "all men are mortal."
But "All men over 50 should have an annual medical evaluation of their prostate gland" clearly does not refer to women.
Just in case, though, Abigail Adams had reminded her husband earlier in 1776 to "remember the ladies."
Since the Declaration will draw many encomiums this year, I will concentrate on its principal weakness.
A fundamental error in U.S. political doctrine is our assumption that nations and "peoples" ought to have a right to independence and "self-determination."
Although this principle was best articulated by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, its roots go clear back to the Declaration of Independence.
The claim takes values like freedom and liberty which are clearly important and legitimate for individuals and tries to apply them inappropriately to governments.
A major problem with claiming a right of self-determination is that such a right is incompatible with the essential nature of government. Political philosophers have long understood that governments' essence is its power to impose sanctions, to deprive people of life, liberty, or property.
St. Thomas Aquinas was pointing out this unpleasant fact when he noted that "Taking away justice, then, what is government but a great robber band?"
More recently Mao Tse-tung wrote that "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The relationship between a robber and his victim clearly is an involuntary association.
Since nobody will consent to be executed, imprisoned, or fined, our basic relationship with government is like that between robber and victim: an involuntary association, not a voluntary one.
A right to voluntarily select the people with whom we are going to be involuntarily associated would be a strange right indeed.
Hopefully, though our involuntary association with government can be made tolerable if the government respects the rule of law and is democratic. There is considerable reluctance recognize the fact that political power is based on violence.
For example, American critics of Israeli expansion after the Six Day War in 1967 claimed that the land seized by Israel when it won the war is “occupied territory” and therefore illegitimate.
But these critics needed to remember that territory is only under any governments' jurisdiction because it was seized by force or threat of force or obtained from another government which itself was based on force or its threat.
Ironically, the 1967 Six Day war only happened because Israel was attacked.
During the 1982 war between England and Argentina, over the Falkland Islands, students asked me which country had the right to govern those islands.
My reply was that I wouldn't know until we saw who won the war.
The Falklands are still British since England won that war.
Likewise, Crimea is again Russian because of Russia's threatened use of force. (The results of the plebiscite in which Crimea residents ratified Russia's seizure of the area might have been honest, but there is no way to tell. The election was also irrelevant, since Russia intended to keep Crimea anyway.)
Although force is the only way a government's jurisdiction over territory can be maintained, wars and revolutions are poor ways to bring about political changes.
Peaceful reforms are much to be preferred. Unlike the United States, Canada gained its independence from Great Britain gradually and peacefully.
Blacks in America historically suffered intolerable injustices, but mainstream Black leaders correctly resisted the bad precedent set by the Declaration of Independence and demanded reforms guaranteeing equality before the law rather than separation.
This was especially reasonable since the different races were not located in separate areas.
No one would suggest repudiating the Declaration of Independence and submitting once again to British rule.
But the United States stomped vigorously on attempted secession by its southern states.
This demonstrated that we recognize no right to self-determination when revolutionaries try this against our own government.
It's high time that we explicitly admit that our revolution was a mistake, and refrain from supporting efforts to secede from other countries, too.
Of course, Independence Day remains our most important political holiday, and the muddled philosophical foundations of our revolution need not prevent us from celebrating it.
And had it not been for its unhappy experience with our independence, Great Britain might not have acted as reasonably as it did with Canada.
Sometimes people learn from experience.
Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. Read more Prof. Paul F. deLespinasse Insider articles — Click Here Now.