As you celebrate the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, you’re likely to hear many quotations of and appeals to its soaring introductory paragraph and claims of fundamental human equality and natural rights. While these are worthy sentiments, they often overshadow the main thrust of the document: the tyranny of Britain’s King George III and an appeal to the international community in opposing that tyranny:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The Declaration of Independence not only outlined a distinct American political vision, but also sought to justify its cause in the global court of diplomacy and international law. In order to win support, the young nation needed to do more than appeal to countries on the basis of a shared enemy. It needed to demonstrate the justice of its cause in light of generally accepted principles of international law, or “the law of nations” (ius gentium) as had been systematically articulated by Hugo Grotius, the 17th century Dutch jurist. Given their elite educations and legal backgrounds, the Founders would have been familiar with Grotian thought. Such a link between the Declaration of Independence and Grotius’ “law of nations,” suggests that the Declaration can be read primarily as a document of international law.
The Founders as global citizens
Thomas Jefferson, as the chief writer of the Declaration, was deeply aware of the demands of international law as well as America’s need for allies. For the American Revolution to succeed, it would have to legitimately claim a place in the existing international system. As William Pencak argues:
Not only is the Declaration addressed to “a candid world,” but Jefferson’s notes on Congress’ deliberations stress that “a declaration of independence alone could render it consistent with European delicacy, for European powers to treat with us … and receive our vessels,” therefore enabling the new nation “to enter into alliance with France.”
Jefferson’s considerations of “European delicacy” were seconded by his fellow Virginian Richard Henry Lee whose resolution of independence explicitly cited the formation of alliances as a reason for declaring independence in the first place: “That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign alliances.”
The attention paid to nations beyond Britain amid the Revolution should not be surprising. Not only was international law a particular consideration in the intellectual milieu of the day, but it held particular importance for the American colonies being, as they were, a critical node in the international commerce that said international law made possible. Indeed, many if not most of the signers of the Declaration benefited directly, economically speaking, from the international system and its legal framework. There was simply no practical or ideological reason for the Founders to reject the international system they were claiming a stake in, and every strategic reason for them to abide by its structure and diplomatic rules as far as they could. Hence, in declaring independence, the American colonies appealed to international law even as they sought to reshape one of its critical elements: the sovereignty of the people and their right to make war in rebellion against a ruler. The Declaration of Independence formed the opening argument in that effort.
Persuading a “candid world”
The critical phrase in the Declaration’s introduction, like any organized document, is its thesis and preview statements:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
The preview statement is a short declaration of intention towards a target audience: The Declaration will prove the thesis that King George III is a tyrant for a “candid world.” Who is this candid world? Danielle Allen interprets this phrase in the egalitarian spirit of the Enlightenment Age: Any individual of reason and good will. That certainly seems to be in keeping with liberal sentiments of the Declaration’s opening paragraph, but there is a concrete realism to the Founder’s understanding of this candid world: alliance partners. How in the world would the upstart Americans persuade these governments to support them?
In short, the new republic’s emissaries needed to persuade potential allies of two things:
That America’s cause against Britain was just, satisfying criteria for just war.
That the American republic did not pose a threat to the interests of European nations, whatever their form of government.
By demonstrating an adherence to the accepted framework of international law, the new American nation could calm any royal nerves that it had any designs on overturning the international system.
The main text of the Declaration enumerates the many charges the Americans accuse King George III of. Each is arranged so as to be individually evaluated and a pronouncement of guilt or innocence made. From a natural law standpoint, these charges speak to the issue of sovereignty, or to use Grotius’ phrase, the “law of war and peace.” Britain’s policies deny the sovereignty of the American colonists by denying their rights as English citizens, rendering any social contract invalid and redefining the relationship between the king and colonists as between an invading aggressor and an oppressed people. As an aggressor, the king has already violated the law of war in that he is attacking a sovereign entity without just cause. Beyond that, though, the prosecution of this war violates the natural laws of war. The Founders sought to convince the rest of the world that Britain was acting outside the bounds of the international system and so King George’s tyranny was not just a threat to the Americans, but an international problem threatening the stability of the Westphalian system.
Having argued the guilt of the British crown, Jefferson et al. turns to America’s own standing as representatives of the fledgling republic: they have “petitioned for redress in the most humble terms” and have not “been wanting in attention to our British brethren.” In other words, the Americans are playing by the recognized rules of the international political game. The implicit argument here is that an upstart republic, an object of suspicion across the Atlantic, would actually be a more responsible stakeholder in the international system than Great Britain.
The concluding section of the Declaration thus summarizes the appeal of the Americans:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America… appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
This concluding statement parallels the two categories of law Congress accuses King George of violating: sovereignty and right of war. Jefferson first claims that the members of Congress are the legitimate representatives of the American people and thus hold in trust the sovereignty of the same. This is a political reality that the Declaration reports (or, declares) rather than creates. This acknowledged political reality gives Congress the right to engage in the international system on equal footing with the powers of Europe (a Westphalian concept), and legally, and justly, engage in war.
The Declaration of Independence frames its argument in natural law so as to appeal to potential allies in Europe. However, the Declaration appeals not only to natural law and the Grotian law of nations, but also borrows from the competing positivist school of legal thought to shift the understanding of sovereignty, how it is held by the people, and how a government may lose its sovereignty. As much as the Declaration grounds itself in the international law of Grotius, it breaks new ground in the international system’s understanding of how sovereignty works.
Conclusion
What can be gained by viewing the Declaration of Independence as a document of international law? First, it demonstrates the breadth of knowledge and learning that Jefferson and other Founders brought to their endeavor. Second, we can better understand how the Founders saw themselves in relationship to the international order of their day. They sought to be recognized not as usurpers but peers, so an air of legitimacy was essential. Third, such a reading of the Declaration undermines the widely accepted view of the Founders as generally isolationist and seeking to position America as separate from the Euro-centric international order. Much to the contrary, this interpretation of the Declaration indicates that the Founders recognized the rules of the international system of their day and sought to visibly play by them. Perhaps even more significantly for our own time, the Declaration’s appeal to international law enshrined a certain global component in American political thought. Subsequent administrations would be skeptical of “foreign entanglements” but America would not shrink from engaging the global environment either. Put another way, Jefferson would probably not be a big fan of international organizations today like the United Nations or military alliances like NATO, but neither would he question their legality or the need to engage with them when necessary. The Founders understood themselves as American citizens, certainly, but American citizens in an interconnected world that required awareness, diplomacy, and a willingness to engage in good faith.