Locke Vs. Hobbes: On the American Declaration of Independence

In 1776, the United States' founding fathers wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence. Although the document itself was designed specifically for the U.S., its foundation is found in the philosophies of John Locke.

Imperial England colonized North America in an effort to monopolize all trade in the world. In an effort to prevent their success, several empires rose up to fight England, though none of them were successful. The final nation to attempt to stop England before the United States' establishment was France. The French military threat to the English colonies ended in 1763, and leaving its state of salutary neglect, England began to use the colonies as a means of making money. England set forth excessive taxes, and overbearing laws that eventually started a rebellion among the colonists. Our Nation's founding fathers were the leaders of this rebellion. After countless debates and conversations with the monarch, it was understood that the only way they were going to defeat Britain was if the colonies were to unite. This proposal was set forth by Benjamin Franklin at the Albany Congress.

A more in-depth stratagem toward this unification was then developed. The Continental Congress produced the idea of a Declaration of Independence. The document was meant to outline the causes and effects of the American colonies' revolution, and to gain support from surrounding nations if Britain were to use military force. However, the ideas and conventions of the document were not entirely original of the Congress. Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration's scribe, has been criticized that there are several similarities between the wording of the Declaration of Independence and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government.

The first cause named in the Declaration of Independence was that all men are created equal and that each man has the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.¹ This is in keeping with Locke's philosophy "A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another . . . should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection. . ."² The Declaration proceeds to say that governments are established, by consent of the people, to protect these rights.³ Finally, it states that if the instituted government fails to protect these rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government.⁴ Locke said "There is therefore . . . another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative . . . act contrary to their trust."⁵ A shallow analysis should demonstrate that the basic rights and foundations declared for American Citizens in the Declaration of Independence are heavily influence by the works of John Locke.

There are several reasons why the founding fathers would have chosen Locke's philosophies as the foundation for their declaration. Locke was a liberal thinker as were the founding fathers, and his philosophies were agreeable with their plan for independence. A Hobbesian point of view would find the founding fathers guilty of high treason. However, it cannot be ignored that it is possible Locke's work was considered because of its history.

Locke's Second Treatise was forged during England's Glorious Revolution. King James II behaved tyrannically in England. He relaxed laws to allow his subjects to avoid imprisonment and he was known for removing Protestant Parliamentary Officers and replacing them with Catholics. He was acting in the best interest for himself, and he was ignoring the needs of his people. In short, the Glorious Revolution resulted in the deposition of King James II and William of Orange ascending to the throne. Locke's philosophies and Second Treatise act as justification for the treasonous activity within England's government.

The founding fathers saw a parallel between the Glorious Revolution and what is now known as the American Revolution. Using Locke as a template greatly increased the founding fathers' chance of success at independence. If England were to respond to the Declaration of Independence with a declaration of their own, it would be fruitful for them to use Hobbes to do so.

England's Hobbesian counter - declaration could have read:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.⁶

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with the right to life. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.⁷ That whenever any form of government becomes unable to protect its citizens, only then is it the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. For as long as government is capable of protecting its people, its people must obey and respect said government. It is to be understood that such a government has the right to refuse to assent to laws, even if it is the opinion that said laws are the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. The government also holds all of the rights listed below, as well as any right it deems suitable as long as said right does not directly endanger this nation's citizens and said right does not disable the government from protecting its citizens.

Said Government has the right to forbid its governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance if said government chooses.

Said Government has no need to pass laws of any nature unless refusing to do so directly endangers its people or otherwise disables the government from protecting its people.

Said Government may call together legislative bodies at any time and place it wills, should it not conflict with said governments duty to protect.

Said Government may dissolve representative houses should they see fit. It is required for said government to dissolve such representatives should they speak out negatively against the sovereign's decision.

Said Government may do all that it necessary to keep its nation united. This includes but is not limited to taxation and military force.

Said Government may act as it sees fit, without threat of dissolution, so long as it acts in a way that does not endanger this nation or otherwise disable said government from protecting its citizens.

Although this counter declaration does mimic that of the Declaration of Independence, it is written as a justification for the King's actions which, through a Hobbesian view, are all perfectly legitimate. However, it can be interpreted that Hobbesian belief allows citizens to elect their sovereign once, and from there they have to be obedient, without question. The sovereign decides the rules, and its successor. The founding fathers seemed to understand that this method leaves governments open to corruption, and so they chose Locke's philosophy. Without question their decision was the correct decision. The United States is still functioning as it was intended to 400 years ago, but England's monarch has been virtually stripped of its power. In fact, England is now functioning in a closer accordance to Locke's philosophy.

[1] Jefferson, Thomas. United States. Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia: 1776.

[2] Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. (Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980) p. 8

[3] Jefferson, Thomas. United States. Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia: 1776.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid p. 111

[6] Jefferson, Thomas. United States. Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia: 1776.

[7] Ibid.