Skip to main content

Penmanship Fit for a King, Words Fit for a Free People



Penmanship Fit for a King, Words Fit for a Free People

We all know that Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, but who wrote the Declaration? Who took pen to paper—actually, quill to parchment—and inscribed the words on the document displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.? The name Timothy Matlack has largely been lost to history, but in addition to having exceptional penmanship, Matlack actually played a significant role in the events we celebrate on the Fourth of July. More importantly, the words Matlack transcribed set into motion a conception of government completely new in world history. While Matlack’s elegant calligraphy appears fit for a king, Jefferson’s elegant prose—directed at a king—had far more lasting consequences.

So what of these consequential words? We’ve all read them at some point, or perhaps been required to memorize them in school. Was the Declaration just a flowery way of saying “no taxation without representation!” Hardly. As Abraham Lincoln later consistently argued, the Declaration of Independence represented “the Father of all moral principle” among Americans and the animating spirit of our laws. Accordingly, the Declaration can rightly be called our organic law. To put it in modern terms, the Declaration serves as a sort of mission statement, or organizing principle, for the American form of government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Nearly every word of this eloquent statement is loaded with meaning. Let’s take each part separately. 

We are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. 

This statement captures the Founders’ belief in a theory of natural rights. We are each created by God, and as such, we receive our basic liberties (our natural rights) from God and not from other men. Our rights are not a dispensation from government, but something we possess anterior to, or independent from, any government. Moreover, the Founders regarded this principle as self-evident—so obviously true as to constitute the natural order of things, not something they dreamed up.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 

Here, the Founders spelled out the broad categories of natural rights they thought fundamental to each individual. The rights to Life and Liberty are easy enough to understand, but what does the Pursuit of Happiness mean? In modern times, we tend to define the pursuit of happiness as doing whatever feels good at any given moment, or “following your bliss.” This idea would have been unrecognizable to the Founders. 

Others point out that Jefferson’s original draft used the word “property” instead of pursuit of happiness, which mirrors the Lockean notion of natural rights—life, liberty, and property. That is true as far as it goes, but it was not all that was meant by happiness. The pursuit of happiness included the right to acquire property, but the concept was broader than just a property right. 

The Founders conceived of happiness along the lines of the Greek concept of eudaimonia, evoking a sense of well-being or a state of human flourishing that is the result of living a virtuous life. A life of virtue contemplates more than “if it feels good, do it,” instead speaking to a higher moral calling. It includes the right to acquire property and achieve prosperity, but cannot be said to consist solely of such. Note also that the right described is to pursue happiness, not that happiness itself is guaranteed.

To Secure these Rights, Governments are Instituted Among Men. 

Governments are created for the purpose of protecting our individual rights, not for the purpose of ruling over us or pursuing some utopian vision of a perfect society. Again, we have natural rights that pre-exist the government. We are not granted these freedoms as subjects of a king and his government, but as free people created by God. We allow the government to have certain powers, not the other way around. Note that governments are not created to make sure everyone has a certain standard of material comfort, but to secure our natural rights. 

Governments Derive Their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.


If we are free people, created by God, each given the same natural rights by God (thus, created equally), does it not follow that it is illegitimate for one man to exercise force or dominion over another man without his consent? Therefore, when we create a government to secure our natural rights, that government is only legitimate to the extent that it is consented to by those who will be governed by it. This is a statement about self-government. It speaks to what we might refer to as democratic legitimacy—that is, the political process we as a free people undertake in order that we remain free, subject only to valid (i.e., consented to) restriction.

I imagine that Timothy Matlack must have taken great care in drawing those cursive letters in 1776, knowing that none other than King George would be reading them, but I wonder if he had any idea we would still be admiring his handiwork nearly 250 years later. Whatever Matlack thought of his work, Jefferson and the others tasked with authoring the Declaration clearly understood that though their words were directed at a king, they were meant for history.
ーーー
Happy Independence Day, and welcome to our blog. Here, we hope to introduce you to the principles 1889 Institute seeks to advance—principles like free enterprise, the rule of law, limited and responsible government, and robust civil society. We hope to demonstrate how these principles can provide guidance for public policy questions facing Oklahoma today. Above all, we hope to play our own small part in “securing the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity.”

by Benjamin Lepak, 1889 Institute Legal Fellow


Popular posts from this blog

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...

COVID-1984: Have Americans Become Too Complacent in Our Liberties?

Alongside the coronavirus, another pandemic is gripping our country, one that we will feel the consequences of long after we reach herd immunity. I dub this pandemic COVID-1984, and I fear it will rot the roots of the Tree of Liberty. The consequence will be a government emboldened by a passive citizenry. One of the most surprising aspects of our current situation is how willing people have been to report their fellow citizens to authorities for the most minor and meaningless offenses. I used to wonder how people in authoritarian countries like Stalinist Russia and Maoist China went along with those cruel regimes. It turns out a tiny bit of fear is all you need to be a successful dictator. And now it’s all the easier to report your neighbors for reading alone on the beach with tip lines.   Even as governors and judges begin to lift stay at home orders, mayors are extending them. A county judge issued a temporary restraining order against Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s sta...

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c...