The language of the Founding Fathers is foreign to us today. I do not mean to say we intentionally disregard their wishes, rather I mean it quite literally. For instance, John Adams’ peers may have regarded him as “nice,” but few would describe him that way in today’s language. For to be nice in Colonial America was to be “accurate in judgment to a minute exactness and culpable delicacy; scrupulously cautious; squeamish; refined.” It did not mean one was amicable in nature or easily tolerated (Adams was anything but to many people).
To better understand the intentions of our colonial patriots, then, we must return to their original definitions, not blindly accept the modern meanings of their words, which have evolved greatly over the last 233 years .
Thomas Jefferson famously explained his opinion to King George III that mankind is given from God certain “unalienable[1]” rights, of which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But what exactly did he mean? What was—pardon the philosophical pun—the meaning of “life?” Of “liberty?” Or of “happiness?” We employ these words so commonly and recite this phrase so complacently that their meanings have been diminished. In order to completely understand the precise implications our Founding Fathers made, a simple etymological history lesson is in order.
Life: A Purpose-Driven Existence
According to The Oxford English Dictionary of September, 2009, the primary definition of life is “The condition or attribute of living or being alive; animate existence.” However, the Royal English Dictionary of 1775, a dictionary that Mr. Jefferson may have used himself, describes it much more eloquently. It reads,
“the state wherein the soul and mind are united and co-operate; the present state, opposed to the future; conduct, or the general manner in which a person behaves with respect to virtue or vice; an exact resemblance of living form.”
As is easily seen, today’s definition is fairly benign. It simply describes life as a condition of existing; whereas in 1775, it was a much more serious and active endeavor to participate in life, one that required body, mind, and spirit. We must remember that the Declaration of Independence was written a good 83 years before Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.” The majority of mankind recognized God, not nature, as the ultimate authority; they recognized their existence as the “workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business.[2]” Man was a steward of existence, not existence itself. He was unavoidably accountable to a higher power (“They are His property…made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure.”[3]), which governed man’s behavior “with respect to vice or virtue.” For Locke, life’s value was derived from an individual’s purpose to God; likewise, its inherently personal value was not and could not be defined by the institutions of men.
Liberty: Individual Free Will
“Give me Liberty, or give me death!” Patrick Henry’s famous demand is the archetype of Americans’ feelings on the subject; at least it was for many generations. Those who proclaim this slogan today may be asking for something completely different than Mr. Henry was.
The OED defines liberty as “exemption or release from captivity, bondage, or slavery.” Another definition, somewhat more political, below this one says, “exemption or freedom from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control.” I would venture to say this is an accurate perception of how the average person defines liberty[4]. But is this what Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, Washington, Hale, and countless others fought and died for in their quest for American sovereignty? Examine the 1775 definition of liberty, again a much more eloquent definition:
“The power in any agent to begin or take up any thought, or to forbear any particular action, according to the choice of the mind, whereby it chuses [chooses] to do one in preference to another. Political liberty is a power of acting agreeable to the laws which are enacted by the consent of a people, and no ways inconsistent with the natural rights of a single person, or the good of society. Thus, it seems to be freedom, opposed to slavery, or necessity.”
Notice the final sentence, “it seems to be freedom [an exemption from slavery or restraint].” It was not nearly as definite a perception of freedom as it is to Americans today. The first part of the RED definition demonstrates a philosophical view that, succinctly stated, individuals have free will. Even the political definition ensures that governmental liberties do not conflict with an individual’s right to think or forbear [to cease from actions, to pause, or delay] any action. Additionally, while the OED illustrates a picture of what liberty excludes, (captivity, bondage, slavery, arbitrary despotic or autocratic rule), the RED emphasizes what liberty includes. This demonstrates a more modern philosophy that defines liberty as what a person is not (regarding institutional control), while its original intent was to define what liberty is (regardless of institutional control).
The Patriots were incensed because they perceived the British Crown to be violating their Free Will, both as individuals and as an American society raised by the consent of a people. Jefferson listed these violations in his Declaration, among which include influencing Judicial power by making them exclusively dependent on the monarch’s favor, conscripting citizens to war against their brethren, abdicating governance when convenient for the crown, impeding free trade, imposing burdensome taxes without consent, and setting up a system of martial law, which, being unaccountable to any civil authority, harassed and intruded upon the citizenry. Each of these complaints violated the liberty Jefferson held dear—an ability to think, speak, or refuse service without fear of retribution from an imposing authority. Jefferson himself, writing of liberty described it as “unobstructed action according to our will.[5]” Freedom was merely a product of liberty, not a synonym.
The Pursuit of Happiness: Individual Regulation of Priorities
We must first remember that Jefferson deliberately abandoned Locke’s notion of unalienable rights, which were life, liberty, and property. His substitution of “the pursuit of happiness” is an important one, and goes far beyond any notion of man’s inherent right to be pleased with his life.
Property, as Locke thought of it, was much more than land or real property. It also included material possessions, but more importantly, it included self-propriety[6]—the idea that self-sovereignty was entrusted upon individuals by God. Even in 1775, the RED defines property as a somewhat internally autonomous venture. Its primary definition of property reads, “a secondary essential mode, quality, or attribute of a thing which is peculiar [belonging to one, exclusive of others] to it, distinguishes it from other things, and is inseparable from it.” While the OED still uses a variation of this definition, it is not how Americans commonly think of property. The 2009 Random House dictionary is much more indicative, which defines it as, “that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner.”
Thomas Jefferson took Locke’s idea of personal property and applied a more active role to it. To pursue, to Jefferson’s contemporaries, meant, “the act of following with an intention to take,” not, as the OED defines it as, “To follow or go in pursuit (chiefly involving physical movement).” Even its secondary definition betrays Jefferson’s intention. It reads, “To follow (a person) with hostility or enmity; to seek to injure; to persecute; to harass, worry, torment.”
An individual pursuit, in a state of nature, is a form of expression; a possible consequence of pursuit is possession. If one attains anything by pursuit, that person will have demonstrated a great interest in it, enough to consider personal sacrifice as a means to his goal. But what, according to Jefferson, was man to pursue? Life and liberty were already defined as inherent, and would therefore not require any individual pursuit. While Jefferson agreed with Locke’s idea of property, it may not have been sufficient for him. Instead he chose the word, happiness.
There are many words related to happiness, most of which describe random luck or good fortune (happenstance, haphazard, hapless, and even happen). But to define happiness as the colonists understood it requires a little etymological extrapolation. Indeed, the root word hap derives itself from the Old Norse word happ, which is to say, “chance, good luck.” In the 14th century, it replaced the Old English word, eadig, which roughly meant wealthy, or rich. The Welsh usage may have influenced definition as well; to be happy in Old Wales was to be wise[7]. By 1775, the RED had defined happiness in quite a different manner than we think of today. Happiness was not synonymous with pleasure, gladness, contentment, or joy. It was more tangible than a feeling.
The RED gives its definition of happiness as, “a state wherein a person has all his wishes satisfied, and is sensible [reasonable or judicious] of the highest pleasures.” Again, pleasure and joy were a possible consequence of happiness, but it did not necessarily follow, nor was it in any way synonymous. Likewise, happiness is much more related to property than it is to any feeling, if one accepts Locke’s definition of property. A feeling implies personal vulnerability, that not only is one unable to defend against them, but also is unable to assuage or augment them without action (jealousy and envy, for example, may not be satisfied by quiescence.). Conversely, the RED definition of happiness implies personal dominion—that action has already been taken to secure and maintain an individual’s desires.
By establishing the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right, Jefferson gave his countrymen, if successful in defeating the British, a mandate for setting personal goals and taking necessary measures to attain those goals. If wealth was a satisfied wish for an individual, Jefferson said it was your right to pursue wealth. If a stable family was your idea of a state of satisfaction, no government could infringe on that right. Jefferson’s clause told King George that he (and Americans) believed that it was an individual’s right to regulate his own priorities—that priorities should not be regulated by legislation or autocratic rule.
Conclusion:
The modern ideas of Jefferson’s rights serve to conflict individual rights’ compatibility with the “good of the society”. It is easy, in contemporary language, to assert that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because we have heard it our whole lives. But our nation of laws has created many contradictions to this proclamation by modern definition standards. The death penalty blatantly violates an individual’s right to exist. Military and para-military service limits an individual’s freedom in favor of providing for the common defense and ensuring domestic tranquility. Lately, Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual rights activist has argued “would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved?[8]” The legal institution of marriage in its current form, according to Sullivan, violates a person’s right to obtain joy, pleasure, or contentment.
The original definitions tell a different story. The death penalty does not inhibit an individual’s right to live a purpose-driven existence, even until the last breath. Neither the military nor the civil protection services restrict an individual’s Free Will. Choices are available to detach from these institutions, the agent of thought is in no way confined, and provisions are made for individuals to refuse unlawful orders. The institution of marriage, in and by itself, does not provide a possession of positive emotions, and a state defining marriage[9] does not infringe on an individual’s right to regulate his own priorities.
Modern society has seemingly made the individual’s desires incompatible with government, causing the “good of the community,” to increasingly become more elevated in political thought. But this is not what Locke or Jefferson intended. They, and the words they chose, elevated the individual above any earthly institution, and recognized that without the individual the institutions would not exist.
[1] Unalienable is a word worth exploring as well, but simply put the phrase meant these specific rights could not be made or transferred to another. In other words, no man could hold a lien against the listed rights of another. A person’s inherent (a word that Jefferson included in the rough draft) nature, according to Jefferson, was incapable of being indebted to another man or government. This is a clear violation of the institution of slavery employed at the time; however, that is a different discussion altogether.
[2] John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, in “Two Treatises on Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration,” Stilwell, KS, 2005.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Dictionaries, at their foundational purpose, are intended to define words as the majority of persons would. Anyone could change a word’s meaning to match their preferred definition, but it may not be widely accepted. If it gains widespread acceptance, it will thus be included in a reputable dictionary.
[5] Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
[6] Richards, J., Mulligan, L., Graham, J.K., “Locke, ‘Property,’ & Natural Rights,” in Literature of Liberty, ed. Liggio, L.P., Autumn 1982, Vol. 5, No. 3 [1982]
[7] Hap and Happy, Etymology from Etymonline, Harper, D., 2001. Retrieved Sep. 13th, 2009 from www.etymonline.com
[8] Sullivan, Andrew, Why ‘Civil Union’ isn’t Marriage, in The New Republic, May 8, 2001.
[9] Marriage, by its broadest definition, is a relationship between two or more entities. State regulation of interactive relationships (contracts) is at the very root of society, and establishing and altering contractual boundaries is well within a state’s rights no matter what form of government. Other examples of state-enforced contractual boundaries are prohibitions on polygamy and incest; on a not-so-similar strain, many laws against conspiracy prohibit two or more people from planning a crime, while there are no laws prohibiting an individual from planning a crime.
