American Thought Leaders - The Forgotten Wisdom of the Declaration of Independence | Matthew Spalding

Episode Date: February 6, 2026

Matthew Spalding is a professor of constitutional government at Hillsdale College and author of “The Making of the American Mind: The Story of The Declaration of Independence.”A century ago, progressive historian Carl Becker argued that whether or not we have natural, inalienable rights as described in the Declaration had become a meaningless question. He believed that the idea of natural rights was not a veritable truth but merely a creed or faith of the men of his time and a product of historical circumstances.Spalding disagrees. He argues that the existence of natural rights and natural law lies at the very heart of the Declaration of Independence. “It’s a claim of truth,” Spalding says.Spalding regards the Declaration as America’s “epic poetry”: “It’s the heart of America ... really the heart of Western civilization.”The founders saw themselves as part of, and as a continuation of, a deep and long tradition, in particular the Greek, Roman, and Judeo-Christian beliefs in natural law and free will.However, after the American Civil War, early American progressives no longer viewed it that way, he says.Their goal was to transform the United States into what they considered a modern state, and they turned away from natural law and God-given rights, and they viewed the U.S. Constitution as a “living document.”Now more than ever, it is vital to rediscover the true meaning and importance of the Declaration, Spalding argues.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

It's striking how often my own students will be kind of hearing some of these arguments about the founders of what they're thinking. And it strikes them as, oh, that's what I was just observing the other day. This is about politics right now. In this episode, I'm sitting down with Matthew Spalding, professor at Hillsdale College, an author of The Making of the American Mind, the story of the Declaration of Independence. It seems almost odd that it's the Declaration of Independence that defines that anniversary of 250. not the Constitution, which is what you might think. It was clearly understood at the time

to be not merely a declaration of independence in sense that we're breaking with England, but throughout the document, it clearly is saying of a new nation. So they clearly understood it as being this birthday. What I want to try to get us back to is a sense of limited government of human freedom and liberty at the centerpiece of all of it.

No government has rights. The people have rights. The declaration is a very thing. is the heart of America. And in the modern day and age, the heart of America is really the heart of Western civilization. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kelek. Matthew Spalding, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Great to be with you. You said something in your new book about the Declaration of Independence that really made me think. He said, The American mind was not revolutionary, but it was radical. Explain that to me. Well, partially that stems out of my interest in the meaning of words.

You know, it wasn't revolutionary. In my reference there is oftentimes we think of the American Revolution as a precursor to and akin to other modern revolutions, the French Revolution, but of course, looking ahead to the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, that sense of a revolutionary spirit. And America wasn't that. We might want to come back to that. But it was something very different. But it was radical. And I used the word radical going back to the original meaning of the word, which is rootedness or root as in radish. Root. So the American Revolution, as we call it, or the American founding, as I prefer. We can talk about that. War of Independence is another. War of independence. They were faced with this just absolutely unique set of circumstances, given where they were,

where they came from, the situation, the international situation, the progressive time and thought over time that shaped them. And to solve their problem, their political problem, their military and strategic problem, their cultural problem, their challenges, if you will, they decided to go back to the deep, roots of the thing. And so that's why I meant when I said it was radical. Now in the world in which they were operating, that was revolution in the sense that it was a shift, a great shift, politically, culturally, morally, but it was not a radical overthrowing and radicalization as in modern revolutions what it was was a radical shift to go back to the the fundamental roots that really shaped what they were doing that's what I meant by radical and what do you mean by progressive

thought that shaped their minds that might that might sound yeah I did I didn't in the progressive sense that it you know changes in this sense of you know early in my book I talk a lot about the meanings of history. And, you know, history in the capital H is what we normally think. History kind of takes on a life of its own and is directional. That sense of progress. No, not at all. But they had a sense of history in which history or individuals making their own decisions.

Man is metaphysically free and makes choices. That's what man is by nature. Going back to the Greek understanding of logos. And man is part of history, but they can shape history. But as a result, there is a certain progress, if you will, not capital P, but small P, that, you know, builds on each other in the sense that the, you know, Greek thought was the foundation of the Roman thought that starts shaping, you know, thought and the Stoics.

And then Christianity changes all of that, and that kind of builds and goes back to the Greek and Roman thought, it adds to that Christian thought that shapes the medieval world, that shapes the changes in, especially European thought coming into England, the English rule of law. That then creates America. And it's that sense of thought over time that shapes them. Well, okay, this is really interesting because you meditate on this question quite a number of times throughout the distinction of progress according to the way you just described and this other perhaps capital P form of progress or progressive thinking. Explain to me that the difference between

this. It's a foundationally different way of approaching. Yeah, it is. And it's something that our world takes for granted a modern way of thinking and their world really took for granted this older way of thinking, we need to clarify that before we in many ways proceed. I mean, the declaration begins when in the course of human events, the very first line. And I had to think about that for a while because when we hear history, we hear, you know, well, you know, kind of this arc, this kind of this thing which we have no control over that has a life of its own. You know, you've heard the phrase a million times just talking to someone casually, you're on the wrong side of history. that's not how they thought of it.

You know, that modern way of history is really shaped by kind of modern thinking, post-French revolution, German thinking, German historicism, which is there's kind of this spirit of history that is this kind of rational, progressive in the bad sense, thing that we then merely try to kind of follow and shape ourselves to that sense. of history. Carl Becker, who's the famous progressive historian who writes what was really the most famous and had a beautifully written book on the Declaration in the 1920s, was very much of that camp. So he wrote a beautiful book about the declaration, but at the end, he asked and answers his own question, which is, and it's to ask whether the declaration is true or not is a meaningless

question. Well, why is it meaningless? Well, because it's been overcome by history. It's no longer are significant anymore. History is evolved. The founders' generation, which is a really history prior to the French and the German revolutions and thought, was that man was rational. He possessed logos, the great Greek discovery, if you will, about man, and that man makes decisions, makes mistakes, their tragedies in history, does noble and great things, great accomplishments, writes books, all of these things,

and history is a, indeed the original Greek word for history is chronos, as in chronology, history is kind of this, all these things over time, which we can study and learn lessons from. That's a very different understanding of history. See, if you see yourself as merely a cog in the,

wheel of history, you've got a different approach to what I should do. If, in other hand, you see yourself as, no, no, I'm a human being that is metaphysically free and capable of making decisions, capable of building things, capable of shaping history itself, capable, most importantly, of being free, which is, that's the radical claim, right? Then that changes how you might might operate. So think about it in international terms today. You're in a country, somewhere off in the world, that has a form of government, despotic, a communist, whatever it might be. Do you think of it as, well, this is my fate in history over which I have no control? Or do you think that me and my fellow peoples are actually capable of changing

that history. We could shape that history because we have freedom to shape history. Those are two very different views of the world. If I may, it's like foundationally different and I keep wondering to myself, why are we not learning the lessons of history? You know, for example, you know, the Greeks figured out that nemesis always follows hubris, for example. That's a great lesson. Right. It's good to know that. Right. Because then you might sort of like go easy on the hubris or at least think about it. Right, right, or at least be aware that that can happen, right?

I mean, I think some of the most horrible decisions I've made, I don't have a ton of them, but when I think about it, it was often in this kind of hubristic way of thinking, and indeed there was nemesis, right? But I didn't know about that. I didn't study it. Right, right? No, there's something about that.

It's striking how often my own students, and since my graduate school, where I teach is in the Hills Hook, is in Washington, D.C., so I have older students who are involved in politics. It's striking how often a student will be kind of hearing some of these arguments about the founders of what they're thinking or reading Cicero or the Greeks or, and it strikes them as, oh, that's what I was just observing the other day. This is about politics right now. There is something permanent about this. So this view of history,

messes up things at different levels. But the older way of thinking about politics, going back to the Greeks and the Romans and then the Christian tradition on top of that, was that things change our lives, the particular things around us, the circumstances, the economy, the actual circumstances of who's ruling at a particular time. But, again, because man is metaphors, physically free is mind is free. There are certain things that can be known and certain things

that don't change. So you can have permanent principles, including permanent lessons about human nature, but you also then have constantly changing particulars. So today we're stuck in this world where either everything changes all the time and nothing is true. We can have a modern relativistic, It's all, you know, nothing matters. Or we have this view that we must be this absolutist, you know, view. And we actually don't have much to say about it. It's almost kind of this Kantian modern sense that there's absolutes and that's all there is. We're losing the human in that world, which is why a good portion of my book is to kind

recognize that modern world. And if you understand something like the Declaration, we need to get out of that world because that's not the context in which they wrote it. But it's also not this artificial modern world that modern academic thinkers have created for us. We need to get back to what that human world, that world of politics and that human sense meant. And so talking history and what is reality and is man metaphysically freed, what can they know? All of that pushes us and the Declaration draws us into that world. Well, and it's very interesting. I find that, you know, we are in the 250th year of the United States and there's indeed all sorts of big celebrations planned. I found it fascinating. As someone who didn't grow up learning much about

the Declaration of Independence, frankly, or the Constitution or that founding, I was. Canadian and we sort of viewed it from this, you know, we burned the White House once and we're proud of that perspective. And then I went into biology. So I didn't, I didn't have any of that. But like why, it seems almost odd that it's the Declaration of Independence that defines that anniversary of 250 years, not the Constitution, which is what you might think, right? Yeah, it's actually a great question. And there is something unique about that. And it took me a while to think about, you know, figure it out, I had some wonderful teachers that helped me do this, of course.

But the Constitution is a framework of government. Now, it's the greatest framework historically. It's the great constitution in world history. But it's a framework. What explains the framework? If it was just the Constitution, it would be limited. There's not enough there there. It assumes we're all equal before the law.

law why the Constitution assumes that we the people are sovereign and thus there are three branches of government none of which is sovereign why the Constitution assumes there are powers of government where do those come from so as a practical matter you need the declaration the American system of law goes back to the Constitution or most important laws are first law it's the supreme law the land, but to understand the constitution, you need the declaration. And the founders always saw them as two sides of the same coin. Or to put it in terms of kind of classical Greek thinking, they believe Plato's laws talks about there's the law, but then there also must be a

preamble to the law, something that puts it in the right philosophical context. That's the declaration. To put it in a more immediate sense, the importance of the declaration. The declaration is, I like to say, it is America's epic poetry. And Jefferson, you know, all honor to Jefferson, as Lincoln said, is a wonderful writer. It's heavily edited and all sorts of things we can get into that. But it's just a beautiful document. And we oftentimes don't read the whole thing.

You read the whole thing, not just the famous. word. And it was clearly understood at the time to be not merely a declaration of independence and sense that we're breaking with England. It's severing that relation, yes. But throughout the document, it severs a relationship and it creates a new one. It clearly is setting of a new nation. The declaration assumes we are one people and this people are going to be a sovereign people and have right to do the things that all sovereign states have a right to do. So they clearly understood it as being this birthday, if you will. There's a prehistory that leads up to it, an announcement, a birth announcement, if you will.

There's an article in Confederations, a first attempt at a constitution, which is a failure, and then the Constitution, which is the framework. And these were seen as the two bookends. So, yes, it is the declaration, but it's the declaration where you get the philosophical mooring, the statement of rights, the beautiful language about, you know, all men being created equal. And so we naturally, the human mind naturally goes back to the declaration. And, you know, I'm always struck by, if you think of other people in the world, what do they quote? What do they look to? What do they hold up? Yeah, it's American rule of law in the Constitution, but it's the Declaration of Independence. So let's talk about this. All Men are created equal, you know, very early in the Declaration. What does it really mean?

So they set up the declaration that opening paragraph and win in the course of human events. We're in several relations. We're going to start to chart this new nation according to the laws. And they set their standard, the laws of nature and of nature. nature's God. So they've created this first paragraph, which is announced what they're doing. It's kind of slow and how it begins in the course of human events and they've set their standard the laws of nature and nature's God. And then Jefferson kind of changes it in this kind of staccato language. He's studied rhetoric as to John Adams. And I want to point out, before we get to the line about equality, it says, we hold these truths to be self-evident. It's very, very, powerful line. It doesn't say

we have some of our personal opinions we'd like to share with you. It's a claim of truth. And this goes back to my earlier point that the mind is metaphysically free. It's capable of grasping truths. And indeed, some truth is so important, they're self-evident.

You can understand them such that it's It's so true that we can all understand them. The idea of self-evidence, the concept, most famously articulated by Aquinas, but also goes back to Aristotle. And the first of those self-evident truths is that all men are created equal, which is, if you think about it, the most radical statement you can think of, partly because it's not obvious, but it is self-evident. That is if you know what man is, which is a rational animal that is metaphysically free to make decisions and choices and think and deliberate and decide, then you understand that they're equally human because that's by nature what they do. It's not a claim that they're all the same size and shape and color. some aren't

you know handicapped and millions and millions of reasons why they're all different hair color you name no that has nothing to do with it it's a it's a

grasping of something that is different for some deep reason some fundamental reason which is what man is man's not a dolphin man's not a fire hydrant man is a human being

that is a human being that is a is a radical thing. Talk about going back to the most basic concepts. Okay, we're going to go back there. That's our starting point. It's sort of radical, except people kind of knew that, right? Humans are different. Yes, but they knew that they were different, but there was something about them. I mean, so for instance, I tell them my students this all the time, we walk into a room. What do we We immediately do. We start, we see somebody right there, that's, that's an assumption on my part, right? We naturally recognize this is another human being and we start talking to them.

Perhaps we have a different language, but we get around, but we begin to do what human beings do. So that's what they mean by self-evident. What's radical is that this is going to be the beginning point of our politics. So they're going back to something that is not unknown. I mean, the Christian tradition clearly has a sense of equality. We're all equal because God... In the eyes of God. Equally, in the eyes of God.

But there's a concept of equality in the Romans, clearly, in Cicero. And even in Aristotle, there's a sense of equality because we're equally rational. So it's not new in that sense. But what is new is the politics of it. All politics prior to the American founding, the American Revolution, the War of Independence, what we're going to call it. You know, it's ruled by the despot, the king, the aristocracy, the tribal leader, the family leader, whatever it might be.

This is a radical idea. Our policy could have been with the notion that we are equal, which, of course, then, you know, the other truth in that first pair follow from that. Okay, well, they're created equal. and created is an important word we'll have to come back to. And they're endowed by their career with certain unable rights, life, living, and the truth of happiness. Out of that, well, the only fair way to proceed is governments are instituted

based on the consent of the governed. And if government is not upholding those truths, securing those rights, we can alter or abolish it and institute new government. So it's really a, it's kind of a logical They don't necessarily all follow exactly as a philosophical matter, but it's a logical building up of an argument. But it comes from this notion that we are equal. I keep thinking about something that you meditate a lot in the book, which is this concept of natural law, right?

I came across it colloquially first, then I founded in C.S. Lewis. And, you know, frankly, over the last 10 years or so, I've been learning about it. But, and we hear about it, but we don't actually understand what it is. And that's, and it stands in stark contrast to this sort of, I don't know, statist approach that rights come from the state. Right. And can you? Yeah, yeah.

Let's, uh, a little bit. First of all, I'll point out the, the misconception. Uh, a lot of times we hear this word, you know, natural law. Um, and we think of, oh, that's some sort of religious mumbo jumbo or some sort of mystical magic or some weird thing that's, you know, put on top of something else. That's not at all the claim. The natural law tradition, and I emphasize that word tradition, because this really goes back to the very beginning, begins with the Greeks, the Greeks and the Romans, the Christian tradition, the medievals, the whole trajectory up to

Hooker, John Locke and Algernon City, the folks that more directly influence, the American founders and the American founders themselves. And it builds off this claim, going back to our early discussion about logos, man is rational, which means man can understand certain things fundamentally, such as all men are created equal. He can understand certain things in the nature of things. He can understand the essences of certain fundamental things. He can make distinctions.

And upon that, he can build certain understanding of things. It doesn't answer every question, doesn't answer every theological question by any means, but it understands certain fundamental questions based on reason. It's a rational activity. It's not necessarily theological at all, although the Christian tradition recognizes the natural law tradition and expands it and adds a higher ultimate aim is in Christianity in particular. But it's still rational.

Aquinas, who's the most part of the famous writer on this concept of natural law, and his Summa Theologica, says that Christianity is not necessary to have natural law. Natural law is the rational creature's participation in the eternal things. Right now, his world has been created by God, but it's not revelatory, this natural law. It's what man naturally is. Paul and Romans talks about the pagans. who don't have the law, by which he means the law of Moses, but they still act as if you understand the nature of things.

Right? So it's a rational recognition of certain common truths. Now, you play that out over time. There are more complicated versions of this in different ways of putting all together in arguments, and different things like that. But the argument is in the nature of things. There are certain things we can come to understand.

Is this morality we're talking about? talking about, what is it? When we hear morality a lot, we think of it's kind of some sort of theory that we've imposed. What it really is growing out of is, is man's natural understanding of reality around them. Man has this, has reason,

which means man is capable of thinking in ideas, in universal concepts, right? Human being. And we can talk about things like justice. So it comes from Arizona. all. Well, okay, you play that out. That doesn't, so we don't, doesn't answer every question, but it might be that there are certain things we can actually rationally understand, which are the basis of politics, such as all men are created equal. Now, it has the word

creator in, created in there, which is a little bit of a twist. But having said that, the notion of human equality follows by reason. It will only, if that's the case, then that would imply, as the argument to the founders would clearly play it out, that implies that no one by nature, or say by divine right can rule us. The only fair way to do this is by consent. The king has no claim on us as subjects. So there is a very substantive natural law argument within the American founding. And it's not something that they kind of discovered later, let's say, in John Locke,

or they read some book and decided to adopt this theory. What it is is this tradition, going back to the Greeks, Romans, built upon and augmented by the Christian tradition. But then, you know, other thinkers, eventually jumping ahead to, you know, someone like a John Locke in England, in the glorious revolution and Algernon, Sydney,

that very much did influence America, who were part of that tradition, talk about man being unique, having a certain nature, having certain, there are certain laws of this nature, but also man has certain rights by nature. Again, and that's exactly where the declaration is. So it's not that it's some sort of crazy hair-brained ideas,

idea that they discovered and they imposed, it's more that the American founders saw themselves as part of a deeper, longer tradition, which they then went back to for guidance. So going back to your distinction between natural law and statism, another way to put that would be they were faced by what? The options they had before them were the divine rule of the king, Okay, we don't want that option. The absolute and arbitrary rule of parliament, which was kind of a almost a Hobbesian Leviathan, you know,

all power subsumed under the state. But we don't like that option either. Right? So it's the rule by force is the alternative. And so instead of the rule by force, they begin, in the sense it's radical. No, no, no. It's not the rule of force.

it's the rule of man. And he makes his decisions freely because he has metaphysical freedom and he makes those decisions among his fellows because we are created equal and just government is based on consent. That's the radical alternative fear. Fascinating. And so, I mean,

it's kind of bizarre that in a lot of ways, I think, across many societies today, we've come to kind of believe that rule of the state or just kind of assume that that's just how things work. I completely hear you.

This is the problem. And actually to tie these things together, this modern notion of the rule of state is also tied very much to this notion of progress in history with a capital H. Which is say that if you read early American progressives, we see it's elsewhere,

but the American progressives after the U.S. Civil War, something I'm more familiar with. Where is progress going? Progress is the development, the evolution of the modern administrative state. And so there is a connection between those things. And what did the modern American progressives want to do? They wanted to turn the Constitution into a living document. But in order to do so, we have to undermine its moorings, which is the declaration.

they wanted to kind of rework all that stuff and deconstruct it as we say nowadays. So there is, you know, the modern statist approach, whether it's the despot or the aristocratic or monocryl or the communist state or ruled by the Supreme Court or whatever it might be, those are all modern deviations. What I want to try to get us back to is a sense of, limited government of human freedom and liberty at the centerpiece of all of this. And the story in America is the American Constitution, but you have to go back to the declaration. That's where the real boring is, which is why, yes, it's a 25th anniversary. It's very important right now to

reread the declaration. 250th. I made that. I keep doing that too for some reason. Yeah. But it's also, there's also a deeper reason to go back to the declaration. The declaration is our epic poetry. It's the heart of America. And in the modern day and age, the heart of America in this in this principled sense of its meaning is really the heart of Western civilization, which is what we want to recover in a world that's gone in a very different direction. Well, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the impression that every modern liberal democratic constitution is based on the American. Is that the case? Almost every...

In general, I mean, I think the American constitutional order radically changed. I mean, talk about a one of those turning points in history. The American in this moment, if you will, that creates the Constitution based on the declaration, radically changes the sense of modern democratic arguments and constitutionalism, absolutely. And so written constitutionalism. Constitutionalism is really kind of grows out of the American experience. And that's extremely important. My point is that written constitutionalism by itself, if it loses its grounding,

is merely mere majoritarianism. Okay, explain that. Well, it's, you know, whoever makes the laws, whatever you want to do goes. Think of whatever terrible European, democratic constitutional country is doing in its policies. If things can go awry if you've lost your grounding, and the declaration would give you the grounding. Consent, what are the most fundamental rights? We don't have a right to whatever we claim.

We have the rights deeply grounded in our human nature. And we are equal. Equal in what sense? Equal, this fundamental sense of being human, which has something to do with what we do as human beings in terms of thinking and deliberating and and practicing liberty. Well, so let me talk about something that initially amused me in as I started this show, American thought leaders.

And then I realized it was really profound. You know, I would say, well, we're a democracy, right? And then people who, you know, have looked at this enough, would say, Ayan, no, no. We are a constitutional republic. Right. Okay.

And it's so interesting, right? Because, you know, again, you think of democracy as this very positive. You know, we have, there isn't one person that decides. It's the people. There's the people deciding, right, this consent of the governed. But actually, democracy is really rule by the mob, right? This is, again, this is my, right? Right.

Right. Right. So basically, like, the group can be wrong, and we see that. Again and again in history, like the majority could be really wrong because they're actually instituted really horrible things. So that's where these inalienable rights come in that aren't actually subject to democracy. And so that's fascinating, right? And incredibly important. So I said, initially I thought it was funny, but then I was, you know, no, actually, this is unbelievable. There's something actually going on there. Right. No, that's right. There's a, I mean, part of the brilliance of the American system is the way in which they combine these two things. A constitutional system, which is democratic, but it's a constitutional republic. You're exactly right. Which is to say it's a, it's constitutional in a sense that the rule of law and it's written rule of law is at center.

it's a republic in the sense that it's representative but broadly speaking it's democratic as a form of government and since that the people are sovereign but how do you do that when all history teaches this lesson that ruled by the demos almost always goes bad at some point if it becomes merely one of the popular passions well so the american founders did kind of two years different things which are key to that. One is that that framework of the Constitution. I mean, gosh, read James Madison and all the debates. It's just brilliant. You create a framework that has the effect of slowing down opinion, the demos, breaking it up. We have a house and we have a Senate, but then breaking up further in a sense you have a legislature, an executive, and a Supreme

Court. The objective is to maintain the constitutional rule of law. So you have checks and balances and separation of powers, which was just a brilliant. I mean, the ideas had been kind of developing, percolating, but they really do it. And it's a brilliant structure. But behind that constitution, which as many ways is checking and balancing and holding at bay the more of the mob spirit of the demos, behind that, Framework is the declaration, which is a deep and fundamental statement that, no, no, no, the people are sovereign because they are equal in some deep and fundamental way.

And that is the most fundamental thing. They're the ones that have rights. I always criticize my, you know, students are people who talk about so-called states' rights, which is oftentimes meant to say, well, we're going to talk about, federalism and importance. But the concept of state rights makes no sense in the American system. No government has rights. Federal government has no rights. States have no rights. The counties have no rights. The dog catcher has no rights. As as dog catcher. Right. Government has no rights. The people have rights. So in that sense, it's a, it's democratic. We all have rights equally. I don't have more rights than you do, even though you weren't, you come from another country. That doesn't matter. Once you're a citizen, we have equal status and my rights are just as valuable as your rights.

Indeed, in general, all persons, the Constitution talks about persons, have those rights. That's democracy. That's, you know, a sense that we are all equally involved in this. But then the framework filters that, shapes it, forms it into opinions that go through the legislative process and the executive process of executing the laws and checks and balances and that kind of thing. So it bring these things together so that, yes, our form then is a constitutional republic. Let's talk briefly about Cicero. So again, being a relatively new student of all of this, the last 10 years, let's say. I didn't grasp the importance of this, you know, Roman, I suppose, well-known Roman in forming American thought.

Maybe tell me a little bit about that. Yeah, yeah. Cicero is, in my book, I recognize the importance of Cicero. For a couple of practical reasons. One is the American educational system at the time of the founding. And if you think of the signers of the declaration and those that are then later framers of the Constitution, they're educated. Many of them have legal studies, which didn't necessarily mean law school, but meant they thought about and studied law. And they oftentimes, in their education, it's still based on essentially a classical model, which meant they studied foreign languages, especially Latin, also Greek. If you were learning Greek at the time of the founding, that makes you wrote the, you read the New Testament in Greek.

And you read, you know, Virgil and other important Greek writers. But they all studied Latin. And if you studied Latin, the greatest Latinist to study, to learn Latin is Cicero. So they all read Cicero. Cicero is also a very important figure in the rule of law. So if you study law, you read Cicero. So he was everywhere. He's quoted throughout their writings.

And the other thing is important about Cicero is the extent to which Cicero is a student of the Greeks. So he brings the Greek tradition in. But also you see in Cicero a more robust sense of the natural law. Remember, he's pre-Christian, so this is evidence now that there's a natural law tradition, even before Christianity. And he emphasizes the rule of law. He also emphasizes there's more of a sense of equality in the sense that we are all. fellow citizens, and there's a sense of a republic. Remember, what is he doing? He's defending the republic from Caesar.

So there are numerous ways in which he's a key figure for the Americans, such that in the midst of they're fighting with the king, they're also shaped by Christianity, but this pagan Roman figure turns out to be very important and very helpful to them in making their arguments. What would you say is his biggest contribution? It's hard to say. I mean, one is just kind of the general study and outline of how to think about law. He's very important. He writes on that a lot.

The natural law concept really comes through Cicero because of the influence of the Stoics. But then, you know, a lot of the, you read him in the Latin, so a lot of his general understandings of virtue. and duty and honor, which he's getting and building out from the Greeks, that is very influential. So I would say it's kind of across the board, but it's essentially transferring the Greek understanding of the logos and reason and virtue, probably is the most important thing.

I would imagine that a lot of that is what's actually been lost today. This is absolutely. So when we, again, thinking back to our early, these discussions about how history is understood, how democracy and republic, all these kind of various terms of art were in our modern world. What do we lose because of all that? Well, we lose how they understood history, how they understood man's reason, but then how they understood the tradition that came before them and what they inherited, which was what, I mean, you know, largely the kind of Greek and Roman understanding of the virtues and duty and honor and what a

Republic is, Republican Rome is a model for them. And then the Christian tradition, which, you know, shapes that and adds to the, those virtues, the, the Christian virtues. I mean, all of that is, if not set aside, because there are critics, they want to, they want to get that out of the history. But also, we just kind of don't talk about that anymore because we're so effect, this notion of history is always looking forward. Progress takes us away from those things. And we forget, or we're told to forget and ignore all that. There's nothing there to see. And you can't read this stuff, read their letters, read their correspondence, read their debates. It just inundates you with all of these references, which are all references to history,

constantly references to history, constant references to the Greeks and in Cicero and the Romans, and constantly it's very clear they're writing in the moral horizon of the Christian tradition, either specific biblical references throughout their writings, but also just more generally, they're clearly in a culture that has been shaped by the whole ethic of the Christian tradition. Yeah, and that's kind of a big argument that you make. The declaration and the constitution were assumed a moral people. Right. In a Christian sense.

There's a general assumption that they make that the, of the kind of people, the Constitution is made for a certain type of people. And that is a people that, you know, has absorbed their history. They've studied their own history. They're British. But they've got this understanding of the Declaration of principles of equality. But yes, there's a moral culture around all of that. which is very important.

But I treat that in my book less as a, or I don't treat it as simply something that, oh, that's some sort of 18th century thing, and we're over that. You really can't read the declaration in particular. There's the Constitution doesn't, it's not there in the same way. You have to go back to the,

it's the other side of the coin, if we'll, the declaration. The, the, the, the, the, the, the Declaration, understanding of rights, of consent, of the very grounding of the American regime. It's not doctrinally religious. Right. And that was important, remember, because they wanted to get away from the religious wars of Europe between the Catholics and the Protestants, but then between various Protestant groups.

They wanted to not have that happen here, and many of them. and come here to seek religious liberty. So they don't want to go there. Having said that, there's a clear theology of the declaration that you can't ignore. You know, there's often the sense that we want to, well, the declaration is merely kind of secularism and secular rationalism. There are a bunch of deists. There's really no there there there. I'm sorry.

It's just there in the various words. And again, it's throughout their writings. I mean, it opens with the reference to the laws of nature. and of nature's God. There are two individual characters in the declaration. One is a bad guy, spoiler alert. It's George the third. Don't want to, you know, if you didn't know that,

just kind of ignore that and move on. But the only other individual in the document is God. The laws of nature and of nature's God. And it turns out the same God, all men are created equal. It's a creator God who specifically creates man. That's interesting. And not only as you create man, but this God endows man with specific rights, life living in the pursuit of happiness. And then towards the end of the document, there's an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions. So this

God is, the same God can see our intentions, the rectitude, um, And then at the very end, there's an appeal, another appeal, this time to divine providence, which say the idea is the idea of a God that intervenes sometimes. You know, the old claim, it's the watchmaker God, and then just kind of ignores it. Divine Providence clearly implies that, no, there's, there's, God is somehow overseeing man's affairs. George Washington, for instance, clearly understood that, believe that. in some very particular instances during the American Revolution, when the Americans were withdrawing from Long Island,

they're about to be completely obliterated by the British, and they escape over the East River into Manhattan and then escape into New York. A fog came up and prevented the British ships from attacking them. And he said that was divine province. So my point is, you really can't read the Declaration. which means you can understand its notion of rights, unless you understand there is a theological sense here

that setting aside what it is in particular, it's not, you know, this is not the New Testament, this is not, you know, the man, this is not the God that became man in flesh. But there's a, almost an Old Testament sense of this God that's clearly in their horizon. And it just bottles the mind that, Jefferson, who was the draftsman, would have written something that would not have been acceptable

to the rest of the signers. John Witherspoon was the chaplain, a Presbyterian minister, was the chaplain. John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, was a devout congregationalist. He knew his audience, and he wrote to his audience. And then Congress adds a few of those references. So clearly they had a theology in mind here, but an intention that would be very non-sectarian, non-specific. It was generally something we could all understand, a natural theology, but it clearly does point beyond that towards this God that sees your intentions and sometimes intervenes the world affairs. Well, but this is, I think, what people have argued. I've seen this argued that the reason that there are these types of references, is because so many people of the day were religious themselves, so it wouldn't have made sense.

So it's really, the argument would be something like this. It's really a secular document, but it has, you know, it's peppered with some religious references to accommodate those poor souls who are afflicted with religion or something like this, right? Yeah, but it really makes no sense, right? I mean, there's the, you need the theology. And again, it's non-sectarian. It's nonspecific. It's not making a religious claim, but it's important, if you understand there, what we might call the great chain of being, which is an old medieval term.

And the declaration requires us making this assumption, which is we're not animals in the sense that we're not, you know, dogs or dolphins or, right? We're human beings. Human beings that somehow has this divine gift. and in turn we're not God even though many of the modern say we are gods we're not God and the our rights the fact that we're created equal

all of that is because of something other than ourselves something outside ourselves something that transcends man something transcend them yeah and so it's that the hierarchy if you will that actually is necessary to understand the declaration. And it's clearly written with that intention. These are not merely rhetorical asides that serve no purpose.

The reference to beginning to the laws of nature and of nature's God. I mean, the laws of nature, we've been talking about that, and of nature's God. The same laws are also the laws of nature's God. natural law, we understand them by reason, but also there's a sense which in theological terms is what we call general revelation that through our reason we can understand by looking around us that there is a God. Jefferson, as the writer and the committee never got rid of that, never debated that, understood these are the two great realms, if you will, reason and revelation to which we are appealing. that is significant. That's more than merely a rhetorical flourish. That's meaningful.

Yeah, and you develop that quite a bit in the making of the American mind. Maybe as we, I don't want to give up the whole book here. I found it quite a, quite a deep and thoughtful read. Maybe just tell me a little bit about what happened, the actual historical events, how ultimately this was signed and like what happened to some of the people. there were consequences for being a part of this. And, you know, just to give people a flavor of what they might find in there. Well, we kind of been talking about some of the larger concepts here. But you know, what I really wanted to do with the book was tell a story.

Because I think the way you draw people into the, the ideas is actually the story. And indeed, you had made an earlier reference to C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis was a model to some extent in the, in the, in the, in the, sense that his autobiography, which is called Surprise by Joy, which is about his own conversion. But Joy is also his wife. It's this wonderful tip of his hat to his wife as well. But he talks in that book about how he studied history, because originally he's studying kind of pagan mythology and all of these things.

But by studying that history, it oftentimes drew him in to these transcendent things. and eventually the eternal things. So there's a sense of telling good history, history draws people in to these higher truths. So I spent a lot of time in the book talking about the history at the beginning, which is how we got to the declaration, how it was written.

Jefferson actually arrives late. He's almost an add-on at the very end, but he's got a reputation of being a good writer. He's kind of brought in and eventually gets in this committee to write the declaration. but on the committee, two of their key people are Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, along with Jefferson and a couple of others. They decide he's going to be the pinman. There are debates I talk about, especially feminist debates between John Adams and John Dickinson,

who doesn't oppose it in principle, but it's not the right time, we should wait, we want to do this. So all of that, kind of getting us to that point. things start moving very rapidly once we learn the Georgia 3rd hired Hessians, for instance, to fight against the Americans. The mercenaries. Mercenaries. They know that the British are literally coming.

The ships, indeed, one of things in the book, which I just find just an amazing story, is that July 2nd, which is the day they pass independence before then it's been two days debating and editing the written document of the declaration.

Those days, those exact same days, the 1776, Washington is in New York, and they spot British ships arriving at the New York Harbor. And they are landing troops on Staten Island on July 2nd, the same exact day. Phenomenal story. So that's the front end. And then the majority of the book then goes through the document, which we've kind of been looking at different pieces, but I go through the whole thing, every paragraph and what it says. But then there's a, I end with the discussion of the Ironmen.

And that's a, that actually comes from a speech of Lincoln's, in which he's beginning in his debate with Stephen Douglas, when he's running for the Senate. So this is now in 18th century. And it's, it's on July 10th. So it's near the 4th of July, and he's in the middle of all this. He kind of takes them aside, and he says, quietes the crowd and says, you know, everything we have here today, everything the world sees that America has, our success, our freedoms, we know is because of those men and what they did.

They were iron men. So it's Lincoln's phrase. And then I have a discussion about what happened to them. You know, we have this sense today that somehow they are just, you know, these dainty individuals who were sitting around debating and wearing tricor-enanced wigs and riding with quill pins.

These were, I mean, mainly figures who were literally giving up their lives, their fortunes, but not their sacred honor. So last time it tells a lot of their stories. John Witherspoon,

who is the chaplain. His son is killed by a cannonball at Germantown. Richard Stockton also of New Jersey, he's captured and he's tortured, but he wouldn't recant the declaration. He's let go, but he's essentially destroyed, and they've destroyed all of his property, and he dies very soon thereafter. The signers in New York, all the signers are tracked down by the British. Twice they try to capture Jefferson.

The signers from New York, they're all, they search, try to find them. Francis Lewis, they go to his house. He's not there, but his wife is, wife Elizabeth. House is surrounded by cavalry. She won't give up. They send ships up Long Island Sound and bombard the house until she gives up. She's captured. She's only released because Georgia Washington forces a prisoner exchange.

Robert Morris, probably one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest man at the time, is the financier. He's the superintendent of finance of the whole revolution. At one point, he's signing what are called Moritz. notes. He's on his own personal credit buying supplies for the for the Revolutionary Army, for the Continental Army. He in today's dollars gives the equivalent of $32 million to support the cause. He dies in a Popper's prison because his other investments and his real estate investments go bad at a certain point. He dies completely broke. It's just a phenomenal story.

So the beginning, how we got there, discussion of the document itself, but then what happened, what happened to them? You know, if we're thinking today, these are kind of these, you know, delicate, just ideas and not really out getting, getting down in the middle of things. It's a powerful, powerful story. Yeah, and I really did enjoy, enjoy reading it. And, you know, it's funny over Christmas, I got another book about the Declaration, which I'm going to be looking at. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but a little bit. simpler, I think. And some other paraphernalia, I think my family realized that I'm very interested. So it came at a good time for me. Yeah, good. Well, so I think we're going to finish up.

A final thought from you? You know, actually, I want to add something that would actually be great for your audience in particular, which is that I come back to that Lincoln speech. It's a 1858 in Chicago. And he asked a really interesting question towards the end of this discussion about the July 4th in declaration. What happens when they've all died? Because they were literally, 19th century, this is actually when they were all dying. They were all gone. Those who fought in the revolution were all dying.

It was a generational shift. What happens when they're gone? And you don't have fathers teaching sons. teaching their sons, teaching their sons. It kind of fades away. Or more importantly, he says, what about all those people who come to America and don't have ancestors who fought in the American Revolution? What about them? What makes them? And then he gives, which is just a beautiful, famous answer. But then they read that old declaration of independence. And they see that.

there what those men said. All men are created equal. And that is the moral principle in all of us. All of us. That's the electric cord, he says, which is true. That gets back to our beginning. Why the declaration? Why do people point to the deck? Because that's the, you know, that's the energy. And anybody can read that. So, There's always been the sense that anybody in the world can read that. We're a particular nation. This is a particular country. We're a particular people, yes, but the principles for which we stand, that we aspire to,

that we hold out to anyone else in the world, especially those who are oppressed or living under tyranny, is that electric court. All men are created equal. So I think the declaration is our epic poetry, but it's all. always, it's dynamite in the modern world about freedom. So I'll leave with that. Well, Matthew Spalding, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. It has been great to be here and have this conversation with you. Thank you. Thank you all for joining Matthew Spalding and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Janja Kellek.