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.
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

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...

School Choice: I Have Erred

I should point out, before the reader gets into this piece, that these are my personal thoughts. Right around last Labor Day, I suddenly had a thought. I quickly made a calculation and realized that, as of the day after Labor Day, I’ve worked full-time in public policy for 25 years – a quarter of a century. While there really is nothing fundamentally more special about a 25 th anniversary than a 24 th or 26 th one, it is a widely-recognized demarcation point. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to take time and write down reflections on my career. My work has touched on several policy areas, but I’ve been thinking a lot about public education lately. That’s the area I practically swam in when I started my career, so here are my thoughts. On the day after Labor Day in 1994 I started work for a member of the Texas House of Representatives. He was the member who always carried a voucher bill, an issue for which I was thrilled to work. By that time, my wife had homeschooled our dau...

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...

Spending It Like They Stole It

When does government have the right to spend taxpayer money? Or perhaps, more pressingly, when should the government be forbidden from spending taxpayer money?   1889 Institute has previously written on the issue - developing five questions that should be asked before any government entity spends a single dime. These questions are:   1. Is a program or agency consistent with the mission of Oklahoma’s state government? This purpose was spelled out in our state constitution : “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Secure and perpetuate liberty (notice this is the first order of business). Secure just and rightful government (not any government, not the domino of the majority over the minority - just and rightful). Promote (not provide, or...