John Jay wrote in Federalist Paper 2 that “the prosperity of the people of America depend[s] on their continuing firmly united.” He concludes the essay by saying that “whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: ‘Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness!’” It is easy to look at the situation in America today and wonder whether our great nation will survive the turbulence. Since the beginning of this year, we have faced the third impeachment of a US president, a worldwide pandemic, continuous economic instability, violent riots throughout major American cities, and a cultural revolution carried out by far Left anarchists with the aim of erasing American history and destroying the country itself. At first glance, it appears that the nation has never been more divided, and that the American experiment in liberty and republicanism may be coming to a grim end. However, crises and hardships are not new or unprecedented in America; in fact, the story of America is the story of a people who have defied the odds and have prevailed over hardships. The thirteen colonies were resolute in defending their rights and freedom from British tyranny, and this shared mission united them in their struggle for independence. America experienced the temporary dissolution of the Union during the Civil War, but it emerged from the conflict stronger than before: we abolished slavery, ensured that former slaves received the same rights and privileges as everyone else, and gave black men the right to vote. America was rocked by economic upheaval during the Great Depression, but not only was America able to make it through and become an economic powerhouse, it was also able to muster the strength to fight Nazism in Europe and fascism in Asia during World War II. During the 1960s, many thought America was on the eve of destruction, as the country dealt with a plethora of issues ranging from civil rights to the Vietnam War to the threat of nuclear annihilation. But America again pulled through, passing landmark legislation to protect the civil rights of minorities and working with its Cold War adversaries to reduce the chances of a nuclear war from breaking out. And just within this century, the 9/11 terrorist attacks allowed Americans to put their differences aside to come to each other’s aid during a time of horrific tragedy. America has encountered many dark moments in its history time and again, but it is through the darkest moments that greatness emerges. While John Jay is right to say that we will cry “Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness” if the dissolution of the Union ever occurs, we should rest assured that such a dissolution is not coming any time soon. We the People will prevail, as we always have, and we will emerge stronger and more united than ever before.

America is a unique country. It is composed of people from different races, ethnicities, creeds, and cultures. How is it possible that people from such diverse backgrounds can all come together and love one another and their country? Well, there’s a reason the motto for the Great Seal is E pluribus Unum—out of many, one. What binds us together—no matter what our skin color is, no matter where we were born, no matter what religious beliefs (if any) we hold—is a love for our country, a love of its rich history, patriotic traditions, balanced and limited system of government, and enduring values and principles. There is a reason that “equal justice under law” is etched onto the entablature of the Supreme Court building: we recognize that everyone is and ought to be treated equally regardless of their beliefs or physical characteristics, and that the law does not play favorites and applies to everyone. There’s a reason why people talk about “American exceptionalism,” the notion that America represents something fundamentally different from other nations. Indeed, America was the first country to be created on the idea of liberty, the rule of law, the equal value of each human being, and the idea of limited government, concepts which were actually quite radical back in the day. America was not a country founded on a single religion, race, ethnicity, or class—it was founded on shared ideals, a common history, and respect for the rule of law and individual rights. As Abraham Lincoln poetically put it in his Gettysburg Address, “our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” And no two documents better encapsulate the values and principles that America stands for and was founded on than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is a brilliant philosophical document. It has been described as providing the philosophical framework for the Constitution, which is simply a legal document outlining the role of the government. However, how we structure the government is based on our underlying values and principles. At the end of the day, everything is a question of philosophy. Why do we believe that the government should be split into three separate branches? Why should power also be divided between the federal government and the States? Why is it important that the powers of the government be enumerated and limited? Why is it important that the rights of individuals be safeguarded? The Constitution depends, in part, on the Declaration to provide those answers, and we can see that the two documents supplement each other quite nicely. The Declaration begins by stating that it is incumbent upon the colonies to provide the reasons for their disbandment with Great Britain. It is akin to the “I think we should break up” message in a conversation focused on the termination of a romantic relationship. The recipient of the unfortunate message will undoubtedly ask for reasons why the relations should be severed, and Jefferson here explains that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” There is an underlying message we can take away from this passage: if you want to change something, you should provide clear reasons for doing so. Cato I, who was writing to counter the arguments of Publius during the ratification debates, told the people of New York to “deliberate… on this new national government with coolness; analize it with criticism; and reflect on it with candour.” He warned them to take the time to hear out the arguments from all sides, to look at potential alternatives, and to use their reason and judgment to arrive at an informed conclusion. In our modern era, we have unfortunately substituted reason and judgment for mindless ideological slogans and catchphrases. We base our wanting to change things on emotions and on how we feel. If we are going to change something, especially if it is going to be as drastic a change as breaking away from the largest empire in the world, people deserve to know the reasons why.

The second paragraph of the Declaration is the most famous and quotable passage of the entire document, and it is here where we learn about the political philosophy that would guide the development of America. The paragraph begins with the phrase “all men are created equal,” which is taken right out of Genesis 1:27, that “man was created in the image of God.” By virtue of being a human being created in the holy image of the Almighty, we are imbued with certain rights, and no one can deprive us of these rights, which is why Jefferson writes that we set up government so as to “secure these rights.” The government is created to protect our property, to protect our ability to exercise our religion freely, and to protect our right to convey our thoughts no matter how controversial or unpopular they may be. The notion that government is erected to protect our rights negates the idea that government can grant us rights. Governments merely protect the pre-existing rights we possess; they do not wave a magic wand and create new rights out of thin air. Even if government didn’t exist, we would still have these rights, but it would be difficult to protect them. As Thomas Hobbes writes in his political treatise The Leviathan, life in the state of nature—where there are no laws or rules to protect our rights—is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Just because we have rights does not mean we can expect others to treat us with dignity or recognize those rights—people can be selfish, cruel, and barbaric, and we institute government so that we have an entity that can protect us when we exercise our rights.

However, when governments are established, they are not given a permission slip to do whatever they please; rather, as Jefferson notes, they “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and if the people feel like the government fails to protect their rights, then “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” The American people felt it was time to abandon their ties with the British because the King failed to protect their rights, such as their rights to assemble peacefully, to be tried by an impartial jury, and to have a say in matters regarding taxation. Many will construe this passage as giving a carte blanche to abolish government for whatever reason. However, Jefferson states that “prudence… will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” This passage ties in with the line in the preceding paragraph of the Declaration about the necessity of providing valid reasons for severing relations or for making changes. These passages are rather enlightening and recognize the reality that it is easier to tear down a government than to set up a new one. For instance, it was easy for the French to get rid of King Louis XVI and abolish the monarchy, but they struggled to form a new government, which led to the chaotic and violent Reign of Terror. The same happened with the Bolshevik Revolution—it was easy to topple the czar, but the system of government that came after can hardly be heralded as a paragon of “freedom” and “equality.” And the idea that we should exercise prudence when deliberating about changes to the structure of government can be traced all the way back to the Bible. In his commentary of “Bamidbar,” the first chapter of the Book of Numbers, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks writes that the Israelites underwent two journeys—a journey from Egypt and a journey to the Promised Land. Rabbi Lord Sacks writes that “it may take a revolution to depose a tyrant, but it is easier to do that than to create a genuinely free society with the rule of law and respect for human rights.” In other words, the journey to—the journey into a future we do not know—is more difficult than the journey from. Jefferson echoes the same sentiment in the Declaration—we shouldn’t be overthrowing the government because of some minor grievance, because to create a sufficient replacement is extraordinarily difficult. However, there are some today who believe creating a new government is as easy as receiving a gender studies degree. According to The Federalist, a survey by the online publication Quillette found that 70% of people who identify as liberal—and 79% who self-identify as “very liberal”– want to rewrite the Constitution so that it “better reflects our diversity as a people.” Two writers for the New York Times wrote that “as long as we think of our Constitution as a sacred document, instead of an outdated relic, we’ll have to deal with its anti-democratic consequences.” They whine that the “American government is structured by an 18th-century text that is almost impossible to change.” However, Jefferson, history, and the Bible all provide reasons why change should be difficult to implement. We should come up with good reasons for why we want change, and we should exercise our prudence and judgment, because the truth is that change is a destabilizing force that affects many aspects of society, and all those considerations need to be thoroughly evaluated. Change should not be pursued for the sake of change, and it should not be based on our emotions or feelings, as many are doing today. Many young people say they want to “make a difference” or “change the system” without providing any specific details of what that change would look like. Bringing about change is not that simple, at least if you want to do it in a way that delivers good results. As Jefferson writes, “all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Therefore, be careful when you want to overturn a system built on centuries of history and political and philosophical thought—you may end up producing more suffering and carnage than you may have intended, just as the French, Bolshevik, and Maoist revolutions ended up doing. That doesn’t mean we should never enact change; all it means is that we should use our capacity to reason to guide us when making these consequential decisions.

The Declaration proceeds by listing the grievances of the American people in accordance with the belief that explanations should be given for the severance of relations. These reasons include the imposition of taxes without the people’s consent; holding trials for people away from the colonies and for faulty offenses; obstructing the administration of justice; and encouraging domestic insurrections. Jefferson states after this list that the people have “petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms,” which is important to mention because it demonstrates that Americans did not resort to bearing arms right away and that they went through every channel to solve the issues amicably. However, as Jefferson notes, “our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury,” and therefore the Americans were justified in taking up arms to gain their independence. Jefferson also notes how they have reached out to the people of Great Britain, appealing to their “native justice and magnanimity,” yet they have “been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” When there is no one left to stand up for you, you have to stand up for yourself, which is precisely what the colonists did.

The Declaration concludes with the assertion that the United Colonies “are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” Thus, the Declaration embodies the core ideas of America, that people are created with equal value, worth, and dignity, that government gets its power from the consent of the governed, that governments are established to protect the pre-existing rights of the people, and that the people have the right to abolish their government if they have good reasons for doing so. These ideas weren’t necessarily revolutionary in-and-of-themselves; as Jefferson explained in a letter to Henry Lee in 1825, the purpose of the Declaration was not to “find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before,” but to “place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.” As he succinctly states, the Declaration was “intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” And Jefferson is right—the principles laid out in the Declaration were borrowed from the Bible and brilliant thinkers like Aristotle, Hobbes, and John Locke. What was revolutionary, however, was creating a country and devising a system of government based on these principles. Not only is the Declaration an example of the perfect break-up letter, but it is the document that laid the foundation for our nation.

As mentioned earlier, the US Constitution is a legal document—it does not purport to espouse any philosophical or political principles, but rather serves the purpose of detailing the role of government and the powers it possesses. Even so, we can still find some key underlying principles in our governing document. The phrase “We the People” in the Preamble reflects the idea in the Declaration that governments are instituted by the consent of men. In other words, power does not ultimately reside in the government; it is held by the people, which is why the people are able to abolish their government when they feel it is not protecting their rights. As Frederick Douglass beautifully puts it, the Constitution is a “great national enactment done by the people and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people.” In Europe, it was believed that power resided in the monarch or sovereign. The doctrine of the divine rights of kings asserted that because God appointed these rulers, they could act in any way they deemed necessary and could avoid being held accountable. As Robert Reilly writes in his book America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding, the doctrine stipulates that “kingship is the immediate and unmediated result of the Creator’s will,” and that “no acts of rational free will or consent by the members of the political community are required for its institution or justification.” Hence, the king did not have to act according to the laws of the nation because “just as God’s will reigns, so does the king’s.” However, the revolutionary idea in America was that power did not lie within the hands of the ruler, but the ruled, and that for an act to be legitimate, it had to be approved by the representatives elected by the people.

The idea of popular sovereignty that the phrase “We the People” captures also illustrates the difference between ruling and serving, a distinction that can be traced back to the Bible. The Book of Deuteronomy provides that a king is required to carry around a Torah and read it every day so that he may “learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites” (Deuteronomy 17:19-20). Our leaders are people that we pick among ourselves—they are no better than we are, and their positions do not make them superior to us. Perhaps we should require our elected officials to carry copies of the Constitution with them so that they remember that they are part of the people and were selected to serve them. According to Rabbi Lord Sacks, in Horayot 10a-b, a passage in the Talmud, Rabban Gamliel said to two sages who he wanted to appoint to office: “Do you imagine I am offering you rulership? I am offering you avdut, the chance to serve.” In the New Testament, the disciple Matthew writes that Jesus “did not come to be served, but to serve” (Matthew 20:28). A ruler sees himself as superior to his subjects, as standing above them, and that this lofty position entitles him to do what he thinks is best. The mayor of Seattle Jenny Durkan is an example of a ruler—she allowed sections of her city to be overrun by extremists and chose to do nothing. She did finally decide to do something, however, once her life and the life of her family was at risk. But she didn’t value or think about the lives of the people she ruled—she allowed five people to die in the occupied zone known as CHAZ/CHOP, and she did nothing as people were assaulted, robbed, and raped. Only when her life was at risk did she take action. Hence, she is the example of a ruler, of someone who only cares about their position of power and believes that they stand above the people they are supposed to serve. To serve is to do something completely different. Moses was the leader of the Israelites, but he was known as eved Hashem, the “servant of God” because he served the Israelites humbly by not suggesting that he was in any way superior to them. A servant does not see himself as higher than the people he leads. Serving means to humbly recognize you were chosen by the people because they think you will represent their interests. As Algernon Sidney writes in Discourses Concerning Government, the magistracy, or government, is not instituted for any person to increase their own majesty, “but for the preservation of the whole people, and the defence of the liberty, life and estate of every private man.” Hence, “We the People” is supposed to be a humble reminder to those in office that they are not rulers, but servants.

Many of the grievances listed in the Declaration were addressed in the Constitution. The Third Amendment was written to prevent armed troops from being quartered in the homes of the people, which is what the King did. The King also denied the colonists the benefits of a trial by jury, which was protected by the Sixth Amendment. Jefferson mentioned that the judges were dependent on the Will of the King, while the Constitution provides that the judiciary is an entirely separate branch of government, free from executive interference and influence. Hence, one of the reasons the Constitution was written was to lay out what the government could do and what it could not do. The Constitution provides what powers the federal government possesses, but the Framers made it clear that the government could only exercise the powers enumerated in the document. If a power was not listed, the government could not lay claim to it. The Tenth Amendment clarified that those powers not belonging to the government and not prohibited to the states belonged to the people and the states. Hence, we can extract another principle from the Constitution—the best form of government is one where its powers are enumerated and limited. The Founders knew what large, unrestrained governments were capable of—they themselves were victims to that sort of tyranny, and they had learned how governments throughout history slowly became despotic when power went unchecked. James Madison said to Congress in 1791 that “to take a single step beyond the text [of the Constitution] would be to take possession of a boundless field of power.” That’s why the Founders explicitly stated what the government could do– a government that was unrestrained was a government that could become authoritarian. Thus, the Founders agreed that the best government was one where its powers were clearly spelled out, and where those powers were limited.

Separation of powers and federalism are also philosophical principles that underly the Constitution. The notion of separation of powers suggests that it is best to keep power distributed and not concentrated in one area, as was done with the monarchies in Europe or the empires in the Middle East and Asia. As Lord Acton famously said, “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and when power is concentrated in the hands of one branch or individual, tyranny is more likely to abound. Federalism is another way of distributing power, this time between the federal government and the States. Before the Constitution was adopted, the US lived under the Articles of Confederation, in which most of the power was concentrated in the state governments. However, people realized that because there was no balance between the national and state governments, the states could get away with whatever they wanted, which created intense rivalries and animosity between states. Therefore, having the federal government and the States maintain control over their individual spheres of influence accords with the idea that the best way to manage power is to divide it among different entities. And this idea about distributing power stems from the analysis of human nature, that humans have the propensity to do evil acts when given a position of power. As Reilly writes in America on Trial, “because of man’s imperfections and inclinations to evil, constitutional order must be arranged so as to prevent a concentration of power from falling into the hands of a single individual or group of individuals who could then misuse it.” Separation of powers and federalism are an extension of a psychological truth, that humans are capable of misusing their position of power, and so the best way to lessen the chance of a government becoming tyrannical is to distribute that power so no one individual or branch of government becomes tyrannical.

Principles are important because they are what tie people together. A successful marriage is one in which the spouses share the same values and principles. Similarly, to have a successful nation, the people in it must agree on the same principles, and that’s what can unite them. We are not a strong nation simply because everyone is different or because we are diverse—we are a strong nation because we all believe in the same principles and values that should guide us. Diversity only matters when people are united by something transcendental, and that includes a shared history, culture, and values. Without principles, without a history and heritage we can be proud of, we cannot have a “We the People,” but only a “We the People of XYZ characteristic.” And contrary to what we hear nowadays, the story of America is not one of institutional racism, bigotry, hatred, or corruption: it is one of a great country that has wrestled with its sins—just as individuals wrestle with their own sins and inadequacies—and has found ways to address them. Of course we have much progress to make, but let us be humble enough to look at how far we have come in our short history. And that progress doesn’t mean tearing down and abandoning everything that our country stands for. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not advocate for demolishing America, even though America had not always fulfilled its promises regarding equality among all people. However, Dr. King used the Declaration and the Constitution to advance freedom and equality for black Americans. He said that his dream “is deeply rooted in the American dream,” and that “one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” If America was founded on racism, why would Dr. King, a proud American, want to “live out the true meaning of its creed” if that true meaning was racism and bigotry? It’s because he knows that America wasn’t founded on racism—it was founded on the ideals that men are created equal and that we all share the same rights, and these are beliefs everyone can appreciate despite their race, color, sex, and so on. America has lasted because it reveres these principles outlined in our founding documents. Those who wish to rewrite our history and rewrite our documents have not articulated a better set of principles that can unite all of us, and they do not even seek to unite us, but rather divide us on the basis of some bodily characteristic. They know America cannot stand if we look at each other as skin pigments instead of as Americans who share the same love of liberty, freedom, and equality. An American is not a rich, white, heterosexual man—an American is someone who loves the ideals and principles that our country stands for and was founded upon. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Booker T. Washington, Rosa Parks, and Dr. King are all people we can look up to as examples of great American heroes acting out and embodying these principles.

Furthermore, to suggest America is an inherently racist country is to imply that its founding documents are racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the promises of equality, justice, and liberty are racist concepts, then no society on earth can function properly. In one of Lincoln’s notes, the sixteenth president writes that without the principle of “Liberty to all,” the American revolutionaries could not have “secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.” Liberty to all means liberty for all, no matter who the person is. A society founded on racism or oppression does not last long. Nazi Germany was built on the idea of the superiority of the Aryan race—the Thousand Year Reich crumbled within twelve years. And those who seek to divide us know that race and other forms of identity politics will force Americans apart. They do so because they hate the ideals America is founded on, because they know that is what ultimately unites us. They do not believe in the equal dignity and worth of each human—they believe human nature is simply a social construct and that some people are born superior to others because of their skin color. They believe that people who are not white are incapable of achieving the American Dream on their own, so they believe that it is their “duty” to assist them, although what they are really doing instead is controlling and exercising power over the person they purport to be helping—they are being a ruler, not a servant. They do not believe in government securing the rights of the people—they believe the sole purpose of government is to enact their brazen policies and to silence those who do not agree with them. They do not believe in freedom—they believe we should all be subjugated to a form of mental slavery, whether that’s a victim mentality for the oppressed or a guilt mentality for the oppressors. But when you look at American history, you get a vastly different and more inspiring picture. The American men who fought fascism during World War II were not fighting for a country based on race—they were fighting for the ideals shared by all Americans. Americans from all backgrounds signed up to serve the same country, because they knew what America stood for and were willing to lay down their lives so that their families and future generations could prosper under the ideals promised by our great nation. The way America makes progress is by holding onto the principles and values that tie us together, not abandoning them. Once America no longer cares about preserving those principles, when it believes those principles are outdated, irrelevant, or unimportant and that something else, such as race or sex, should serve as the foundation for our nation, then we will have a reason to utter the words written by John Jay: “Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness!”

A Constitutional Conservative