This blog has dedicated a bit of space to a historical
question: when did Lockean ideas, in the
form of the natural rights construct, become dominant? That they are dominant today is not questioned. But, the position of this blog is that while
Lockean ideas can be found in American political debates all the way back to
the earliest days of the Republic, it was the federalist construct that was
dominant all the way up until the years after World War II.
This is an important issue in that
many arguments that natural rights advocates advance, tend to rely on stressing
that the nation’s constitution sets forth a political and legal structure based
almost exclusively on a standard of liberty.
In turn, that standard relies on a more modern interpretation of Locke’s
ideas. In a nutshell, that view claims
that every citizen retains the right to do what he or she wants to do as long
as he/she does not interfere with others having the same right. As such, that view bolsters a highly
individualistic view of governance and politics.
A more fuller account of the Lockean
view is provided in two previous postings:
“Property As Self” (March 11, 2016) and “Property As Self (continued)”
(March 15, 2016). The reader is invited to
look up those postings for this background.
This posting is a quick word on the writings of the historian, Garry
Wills, whose work, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence, is written in the school of thought that attributes to Locke much
influence on Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers.
After reading about the arguments
that led to the adoption of the Declaration
of Independence and how those arguments reflect Locke’s ideas, one gets a
strong impression that Wills is promoting this much earlier dominance of
Lockean ideas. But then he writes a
general description of how the Declaration
is somewhat at odds with this disposition.
This posting shares an extended quote from his work which, this writer
believes, undermines this whole Lockean, foundational position:
In some ways, it would make better
sense to treat the 1774 Bill of Rights as the basic charter of our Revolution. As we shall see, the Congress did not realize
the import of the document [the Declaration
of Independence] it cleared for printing on July 4, 1776.
The
first of many accidents that helped promote the Declaration was that it
concluded with a charter form deriving from the first Association’s
pledge. Our later cult of the “the
signers” as individuals has obscured the fact the “we” who “mutually pledge our
lives, our fortunes & our sacred honour” are the “united states” of the
document’s title. Though individuals
signed as members of the clustered delegations, only states voted, one vote per
state. This compact-form gives the Declaration a greater solemnity than the Bill of Rights possessed, while taking
up a greater responsibility than the first pact, the Association, looked
toward.
…
Congress had spoken for the “united states” in terms of the most comprehensive and unifying doctrine available to it.[1]
[emphasis added]
This blog will,
in some future posting, make comment on the 1774 Bill of Rights. Here the point is that by Wills referring to
the Declaration as a compact, this is in line with federalist theory. Those readers who read this blog regularly
can probably explain this relationship – it has described the significance of
the term, compact, more than once. But
for those readers not so “instructed,” here goes a shortened description.
Federalist
theory is based on a social contract explanation of how a polity is initiated
or should be initiated. That is, the
founders of the polity come together and mutually agree to certain
provisions:
·
a
statement of purposes and principles,
·
a
listing of individual and collective rights,
·
a
structural model by which the polity will be governed,
·
a
set of powers the agreement bestows on the polity,
·
any
special provisions like prohibitions,
·
sanctions
on those who defy any parts of the agreements, and
·
the
signers (those agreeing to the agreement or representatives of those agreeing
to the agreement).
If the agreement calls on God to witness the agreement, it is
a covenant; if it doesn’t, it is a compact.
The Declaration of Independence
is a covenant, the US Constitution is
a compact. The term federalism is
derived from the Latin word for covenant – foedus.
This accounting
of a social contract is at odds with that of the natural rights view. Here, federalism is not an individualistic
view, it is a communal view. This group forms
and together decides to formulate this polity.
Yes, each member does have rights, but the emphasis is on the communal
nature of the enterprise. The gathering
is bent on creating the common in the common good or in the commonwealth. This writer sees their trump value is not
liberty, but societal welfare.
Whether the agreement
is a covenant or compact, such an agreement is sacred, and Wills seems to
understand this when he writes, “This compact-form
gives the Declaration a greater solemnity
than the Bill of Rights possessed, while taking up a greater responsibility
than the first pact, the Association, looked toward.” In other words, Wills, probably
unintentionally, provides evidence – in the form of expert opinion – that at a
more basic level, it wasn’t Lockean ideas that spurred them to issue the Declaration, but instead it was federalist
ideals.
Where they
more consciously alert of the Bill of Rights of 1774? Probably; the 1774 document was responding to
the immediate issues they had with the British Crown. But underlining these moves was a federalist
concern to unite the 13 colonies under an agreement to secure their
independence. Given the potential
consequences failure could mean to themselves, to their homes and communities, and
to their futures, this business occupied highest level of their concerns.
[1] Garry
Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence (New York, NY:
Vintage Books, 1978/2018), 90.
