US Government (Wednesday, January 18, 4th period)

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

Josh stopped his totally grown-up coloring project when his US government class came into the room. Putting the maps of Montana away, he stood up and reached for his notes.

"I could tell from the glazed looks on your faces--and in the case of Clarence, a certain degree of drooling--that you might not have picked up just how important the work of Enlightenment philosophers was to the thinking of the men who eventually founded the modern democracy of the United States."

"Let's back it up a bit. The 1500s and the first half of the 1600s in Europe were pretty much non-stop religious wars. After the political situation stabilized, there was a growing thought that maybe listening to only the churches--which were still very busy damning the other side to hell for their beliefs--to discover and understand, you know, all human knowledge was a bit of a bad idea. The Enlightenment began as a belief in a rational, orderly and comprehensible universe. And then the philosophers began wondering if the universe could be comprehensible, why couldn't governments make sense, too?"

He continued talking about the Enlightenment for another half-hour.

Finally he looked up from his notes. "Everyone still awake? Or mostly? Great. In John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, he claims that by the 'law of nature', every individual has the right to punish those who cause wrongful injury to their life, liberty or property." He looked up. "This might sound terribly familiar for any of you who have ever heard the line in the Declaration of Independence that claims, among other self-evident truths, our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

He put his hands on his desk and looked around the room. "My question to you is, why do you think that Jefferson changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration?"

He looked around. "Your homework for today is to find a copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it. Understanding it would be a bonus, but reading it is required. See you all on Friday, where we will be talking about the Declaration in excruciating detail."

Comments

Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

...

Re: Discussion question...

[leeadama.livejournal.com]

"I have no idea why Jefferson would make that change, except to be more poetic," Lee says snidely. "Define 'happiness' anyway and how can you legally sue someone for hindering your pursuit of it?"

Re: Discussion question...

[carter-i-am.livejournal.com]

"The document was supposed to be more of a statement of ideals, not a basis for lawsuits," Sam argued. "It was a big F-U to King George III of England and was written in the most inflammatory language possible in the hopes that he would take them seriously and give up without a war."

"And it's not happiness that is guaranteed, Lee, but the pursuit of it."

Re: Discussion question...

[leeadama.livejournal.com]

"England, England, why is it always England?" Lee groans, putting his head on his desk.

Re: Discussion question...

[oatmanspatient.livejournal.com]

"Slaves," Marty said in a bored voice.

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Care to elaborate at all, Clarence?"

Re: Discussion question...

[oatmanspatient.livejournal.com]

"Even during that period of time, well before the civil war, there was an intense debate regarding the use of slaves. Even though Jefferson was a slave owner, it was hypocritical to declare property in the declaration of independence when a great deal of the populace in the south were enslaved and had no right to property."

Re: Discussion question...

[kitty--fetish.livejournal.com]

"Ownership of land was a bigger issue farther back in history, wasn't it?" Alphonse asked. "It was a sign of how wealthy you were. The rich had large plots of land, while the poor had much smaller homes. Perhaps by the time Jefferson wrote the document, property was not so much of an issue. Instead, they were far more concerned about self-worth and the better for the people."

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

Josh nodded. "Interesting point. In the colonies, there was land pretty much available to whoever got there and was willing to work hard enough to make it pay off. In Europe, this was very definitely not the case. The opportunity to own land was a big driving force in many people coming to America at all--so why wouldn't Jefferson include property as a right to have? Was it just so he wasn't completely cribbing from Locke? Or for poetic value like others have said?"

Re: Discussion question...

[kitty--fetish.livejournal.com]

Alphonse thought about the question for a moment. "Poetic value sounds like a pretty silly reason to state something on important documents, in my opinion. I think the last thing I would worry about while telling my king I don't want to be associated with him anymore is to have fancy wording."

Re: Discussion question...

[chasingangela]

Angela scrunches up her forehead in thought. "I think it's to make the Declaration sound more poetic, like Lee said. The right to property is a real thing. The right to pursue happiness is nice, but it doesn't really mean anything. Same thing with the right to liberty."

Re: Discussion question...

[oatmanspatient.livejournal.com]

Marty looked over at Angela when she spoke up, smiled wistfully... Then frowned and looked away.

Re: Discussion question...

[izzyalienqueen.livejournal.com]

"Wouldn't property relate more to the past? I mean, for how many centuries were people considered property? And I'm not talking about slavery, but just about life in the Middle Ages in general. The average person usually was born, lived and then died on some feudal estate. They essentially belonged to the lord of the manor. When Jeffereson was writing the Declaration maybe he was trying to say is that here and now, everyone had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted."

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Good thought," Josh said, nodding.

Re: Discussion question...

[whitedeathpod.livejournal.com]

"Pursuit of happiness sounds more...attainable, I think. A lot of people, in the past, present and future won't be able to afford, gain, inherit property for whatever reason. By changing it to pursuit of happiness, it'll make the average layman think, that by owning a computer, driving a Civic, and enjoying their job that their rights are being fulfilled. Maybe?"

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Interesting thought. Wonder what Jefferson would've thought about an implied right to owning a Civic?"

Re: Discussion question...

[peter--parker.livejournal.com]

"Well, it's kind of tough to follow up Ma-- Clarence's explanation, so if I can, I'll pull a Jefferson and go with what he said, but with a little extra flair. In addition to slavery, I think it was also to make it a bit more generalized for the sake of the new country. I mean, here they were, a new country, the future - and, um, a war - ahead of them. 'Property' is limiting as the third right because it's just too concrete. It can apply to so much more with 'the pursuit of happiness.' It can mean knowledge, family, gardening... Whatever it is that makes you look out the window and say, 'Hey, I'm glad to be here.'"

Peter finally took a good breathe after that ramble. "Which is, I suppose, the long-winded way of saying 'poetry.'"

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Very good," Josh said.

Re: Discussion question...

[kawalsky.livejournal.com]

"I'm not much of a writer, but I figure if I was going to write something that would be the foundation of what I wanted to be a great nation, I'd put it in a way that would get people really behind it and want to support it. To do that, I'd have to give people a reason to get behind it. I'd have to get in there and give them something to work for that was possible. Property wasn't always possible for a lot of people who came over to settle here. By changing it to 'pursuit of happiness', it meant that the nation would be based on the best interests and happiness of its citizens whether they had property or not. Jefferson put a promise in there that was vague enough that it could mean a lot of different things to different people, and in a nation where there was the freedom to be different, that was important."

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Nicely put," Josh said, nodding.

Re: Discussion question...

[wannabelawyer.livejournal.com]

"Part of it was probably that, well, how can you guarantee someone the right to own stuff? Unless you're going to give everyone said stuff, you can't, really. It's much easier to say that people have the right to try and be happy, because that's more abstract. I hadn't even thought about the slave thing before," he continued, nodding in Marty's direction, "but that makes a lot of sense."

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Yeah, this was more of a manifesto--not exactly meant to be considered legally binding," Josh said with a smile. "It was a very nicely worded break-up letter, in the final scheme of things."

Re: Discussion question...

[blueskin-mystiq.livejournal.com]

"Hmm. Maybe it relates to property being related to aristocracy. They were trying to get away from those ideas of a landed class and into equality."

Re: Discussion question...

[professor-lyman.livejournal.com]

"Interesting thought," Josh said.

Re: Discussion question...

[notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com]

"John Adams stated, ""The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

According to Jefferson and the political philosophers of his day, property was everything from your name and reputation to your real estate. Looking at it like that, your pursuit of happiness is your property."