"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, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."Danielle Allen, a professor at Princeton University and the author of a new book on the Declaration of Independence, argues that the first period--after "pursuit of Happiness"--is incorrect, because when William Stone produced his engraving of the Declaration in 1823, the Matlack parchment was badly faded, and Stone read a period when he should have read a comma . Her paper elaborating her reasoning is persuasive to me. I have often found the punctuation of the Declaration puzzling, and now Allen has cleared this up for me. In the fourth edition of my book Political Questions: Political Philosophy from Plato to Pinker, I will replace that period with a comma in the copy of the Declaration in the Appendix.
Oh, I know, many of you are thinking--what difference does it make whether it's a period or a comma? But Allen has persuaded me that it does make a big difference in how we interpret the most philosophically important passage in the Declaration. Most of her paper is about the textual history of the various copies of the Declaration. But there's also an intellectual history of the philosophical implications of the punctuation. And here she makes two points. First, she argues that replacing the period with a comma makes this one long sentence, and this along with the two dashes makes clear the syllogistic structure of this sentence. Second, she argues that the correct punctuation helps to emphasize the importance of the "pursuit of Happiness," which replaces "property" in the traditional Lockean and Jeffersonian phrase "life, liberty, and property." I agree with the first point. I partially disagree with the second point.
With Allen's punctuation, this passage becomes one long sentence with five "that" clauses. She analyzes this as a syllogism, with the first three "that" clauses stating the major premise, the fourth "that" clause stating the minor premise, and the fifth "that" clause stating the conclusion. Here's the way she structures it:
Premise 1: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Premise 2: that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
[Implicit Premise 3: that people have a right to whatever is necessary to secure their rights.]
Conclusion: that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.If we see a comma rather than a period after "pursuit of happiness," we can see this as one sentence rather than two. And if we see the dashes after "pursuit of happiness" and after "consent of the governed," then we can see the three-part structure of this syllogism. This makes sense to me.
But while I agree with Allen about the emphasis on "pursuit of happiness," I disagree with her claim that this was John Adams' substitution for "property," because Adams objected to slavery, and the Lockean right to property was used to justify slavery, while pursuit of happiness could be understood as a equal right of all human beings (see her paper, pp. 12, 23-26, 28-29).
Allen doesn't recognize that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" was first used by Locke in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (I.ii.3; II.xxi.39, 42-44, 48, 52-53, 55-56, 61-63, 70). All human beings naturally desire happiness, and this is the ultimate natural desire that underlies all other natural desires. The natural rights of human beings are rooted in their natural desires as directed to happiness as their final end, which explains what Allen identifies as the "implicit premise 3." Human beings naturally assert their rights to whatever is necessary to secure their natural desires as expressing their ultimate desire to pursue happiness, and they can recognize that all are naturally equal in this assertion of natural rights. And although different human beings place their happiness in different things, they all desire happiness. So although there is no single summum bonum for all human beings, happiness diversely interpreted is the summum bonum for each individual (II.xxi.55-56).
Allen also doesn't recognize that the equal right to the pursuit of happiness, which denies slavery, is rooted in a Lockean conception of property as founded in self-ownership. One cannot rightly claim to have property in other human beings, because this would deny the claim of all human beings to own themselves and the products of their labor. It was this kind of reasoning that was employed by Abraham Lincoln--in his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence--to deny the justice of slavery.
Notice that Allen does not quote anything from Adams that would indicate that he saw the idea of property rights as opposed to the idea of the pursuit of happiness.
I have developed some of these points in other posts here, here, here, and here, which include links to other related posts.