III. THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

By JAMES SULLIVAN, Ph. D.,

WITH DISCUSSION BY

Prof. WILLIAM A. DUNNING.

H. Doc. 461, pt 1-5

65

THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

By JAMES SULLIVAN, PH. D.

The doctrines of the Declaration of Independence may, for convenience of treatment, be grouped under five heads: First, the doctrine of equality-all men are created equal; second, the doctrine of inalienable rights; third, that the origin of government was in a conscious act-governments are instituted (the doctrine of the social compact is present here, though it is not expressly mentioned); fourth, the powers of government rest on the consent of the governed; fifth, the right to throw off government, hence the right of revolution.

In regard to the second of these doctrines-that is, the doctrine of inalienable rights-it will not be inapropos to say a few words in order to define our position toward such theories in general. Very recently we have heard a great deal about all kinds of rights. Enlightened editors and correspondents of various New York newspapers have written learnedly about the numerous rights of man, inalienable and otherwise. A former lawyer of this State has announced that he has certain inalienable rights because the constitution of Pennsylvania says so; a city superintendent of schools has declared that teachers have an inalienable right to strike; and various labor organs have heralded in type measurable only by a foot rule that man has the inalienable right to labor and to prevent others from laboring. In fact, in the public mind of to-day inalienable rights are those things which we reserve for ourselves and deny to our enemies.

This whole discussion in the press has served to illustrate the wide gulf which separates the scholarly world from the general public. As a matter of fact, the world of learning

long ago abandoned the state-of-nature theory, with all its corollaries of equality, inalienable rights and others, but the world at large still seems to be, in respect to such doctrines, back in the eighteenth century. Such a state of mind is not surprising, however, when we consider that the average man stops his schooling at a stage in his mental development when such doctrines as those expounded in the Declaration of Independence leave an indelible impression which can not be removed by mere contact with the active, commercial world.

Into the discussion as to whether there are such things as inalienable rights it is not the purpose of this paper to go at any length. Had man been blessed in the beginning with an inexhaustible as well as a bountiful supply of the luxuries and necessities of life, such as existed in proverbial Eden, we may be safe in saying that the doctrine of inalienable rights would never have arisen. Unfortunately for him, however, the very necessaries of life-omitting luxuries altogether gave out at times, and the pack of which he was a part seemed to think that the easiest way was the best way, and took what they could get from their neighbors. When the neighbors had nothing but their own flesh, the conquering hungry ones took that. Now the eaten men may have thought in their own primitive way that they had an inalienable right not to be thus devoured, but it is doubtful if they could have convinced the eaters to accept any such high-flown notions. In truth could the eaten have changed places with the eaters, the idea of man's inalienable right to his life would scarcely have found place in their rudimentary brains."

Fortunately for man he did progress, and there arose some sort of crude, social unit which gave a rather uncertain guarantee that an individual's life was his own, and that no one could deprive him of it with impunity. In other words, the so-called inalienable right of life was made possible to man by organization. If we once grant this, however, we destroy its whole character of inalienability, for that which is inalienable in the sense of the Declaration not only can not be taken away, but is actually part of man from all time.

Such, and I do not think I am making the case too strong, is the position of modern writers on this subject. The right

a See the interesting study by Spencer and Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia. London, 1899.