Declaring Independence

     Reading about the Declaration of Independence this weekend brought back many memories of my high school history days, in which we debated the meaning of historical documents, and whether or not the Declaration and Constitution need be interpreted from the perspective of the Founding Fathers, or rather from a more "living document" sense of interpretation.   In Davidson and Lytle's reading, "Declaring Independence"  this concept was referenced to a degree in the discussion of Jefferson's language.  Page 71 of the text quotes Jefferson as having said, "The sentiments of men are known not only by what they receive, but by what they reject also."  One can begin to question what the Declaration meant for those of the 1700s, as well as for us today by separating the carefully separated sentiments of the document as well as its ambiguities.  Certainly enough, the Declaration of Independence was, as much as anything, a statement to other nations besides England.  We were looking for Allies in the coming struggle for independence which would ineveitably ensue following such a charged document, and, as "Declaring Independence" points out, many of the grievances listed as well as the general rhetoric of the document are geared towards gaining support for this sort of audience.
     I find that perhaps one of the most difficult questions which arises when reading colonial documents, however, is that of language itself.   "Declaring Independence" states, "...the English language has changed over the past two hundred years, while the words themselves remain the same.  As a result, we may find ourselves reading an eighteenth-century sentence whose meaning appears perfectly clear, when in fact it had an entirely different sense to the author"(74).   What exactly is "the persuit of happiness?"  what is "equality?" What is "liberty" or even "life?"    These are the questions, beyond the surface appeal of the Declaration, which continue to plague us as a society today as we seek to better ourselves as a nation and society.   What can the government do to ensure these ideas?  Is it the government's job to do so?  If yes, how do we even begin to define these concepts in a legal sense?  Who gets to do so?  Do we look to the original ideas which inspired the document, or does a "modern lens"  require that we re-examine these concepts and move them away from the intent that they perhaps held originally?  Does the process remove value from the Declaration itself?  I am not sure I can answer all of these questions, or even some of them.  However, in reading more about the early formation of the government, this is the struggle which manifests itself in my head.  I don't believe we can ever have the "perfect" answer, but it is important to keep trying.