A Contemporary Critique of the Declaration of Independence

[George H. Smith]

I have been researching contemporary critiques of the Declaration of Independence. Many were written, by both American loyalists and Brits, but most of them focus on the list of grievances -- which was the most significant part of the document at the time. But I happened across one criticism of the famous second paragraph -- the one that begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." -- from the Scots Magazine (August 1776). The Scots Magazine covered events in America very closely, and when it printed the Declaration of Independence it included the passage quoted below.

The original can be found here:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

You will need to scroll down to the August 1776 issue.

I will not comment on this passage now, except to say that I regard most, but not all, of it as sophistry. I would be very interested to learn what OLers think of it, and what criticisms they may have.

The meaning of these words the Congress appear not at all to understand, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let us put some of these words together. -- All men are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right of life. How far they may be endowed with this unalienable right I do not say, but, sure I am, these gentry assume to themselves an unalienable right of talking nonsense. Was it ever heard since the introduction of blunders into the world, that life was a man's right? Life or animation is of the essence of human nature, and is that without which one is not a man; and therefore to call life a right, is to betray a total ignorance of the meaning of words. A living man, i.e., a man with life, hath a right to a great many things; but to say that a man with life hath a right to be a man with life, is so purely American, that I believe the texture of no other brain upon the face of the earth will admit the idea. Whatever it may be, I have tried to make an idea out of it, but own I am unable. Prior to my having any right at all as a man, it is certain I must be a man, and such a man I certainly cannot be if I have no life; and therefore if it is said that I have a right to life, then the word I must signify something without life; and consequently, something without life must be supposed to have a property, which without life it is not possible it can have. Well, but they say, all men have not only a right to life, but an unalienable right. The word unalienable signifies that which is not alienable, and that which is not alienable is what can not be transferred so as to become another's; so their unalienable right is a right which they cannot transfer to a broomstick or a cabbage-stalk; and because they cannot transfer their own lives from themselves to a cabbage-stalk, therefore they think it absolutely necessary that they should rebel; and, out of a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, allege this as one of the causes which impels them to separate themselves from those to whom they owe obedience. The next assigned cause and ground of their rebellion is, that every man hath an unalienable right to liberty; and here the words, as it happens, are not nonsense; but then they are not true; slaves there are in America; and where there are slaves , their liberty is alienated. If the Creator hath endowed man with an unalienable right to liberty, no reason in the world will justify the abridgement of that liberty, and a man hath a right to do everything that he thinks proper without controul or restraint; and upon the same principle, there can be no such things as servants, subjects, or government of any kind whatsoever. In a word, every law that hath been in the world since the formation of Adam, gives the lie to this self-evident truth (as they are pleased to term it); because every law, divine or human, that is or hath been in the world, is an abridgement of man's liberty. Their next self-evident truth and ground of rebellion is, that they have an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness an unalienable right! This surely is out-doing everything that went before. Put it into English: The pursuit of happiness is a right with which the Creator hath endowed me, and which can neither be taken from me, nor can I transfer it to another. Did any mortal alive hear of taking a pursuit of happiness from a man? What they can possibly mean by these words, I own, is beyond my comprehension. A man may take from me a horse or a cow, or I may alienate either of them from myself, as I may likewise anything that I have; but how that can be taken from me, or alienated, which I have not, must be left for the solution of some unborn Oedipus.

Ghs

[anthony]

I'm thinking some things were not meant to be prized apart, like this gentleman is doing - but read in their entirety.

He does get stuck on "unalienable", the definition of which he prefers is "not transferring ownership of" - which of course is ridiculous regarding Life.

The other definition he overlooked is "not being estranged from"; obviously the one indicated here.

That one has to have life, to have a right to it, is self-evident - but let a good logician tackle that.

"Pursuit of happiness" is the one I've so often quoted and thought about.

Of course Rand borrowed it extensively, and I think she and the Founders had in common a vision of Man pursuing a peaceful, self-interested and TOTAL existence, to the extent of his own nature and choice. Again, it is "unalienable" only in the second definition of the word.

Liberty he also makes a strawman out of I think - inconsistency and self-contradiction by the slave-owning Founders was their error, not the Constitution's.

Not an Americaphile this guy, Ghs: "...so purely American that..."

Who was he?

Tony

[George H. Smith]

I'm thinking some things were not meant to be prized apart, like this gentleman is doing - but read in their entirety.

He does get stuck on "unalienable", the definition of which he prefers is "not transferring ownership of" - which of course is ridiculous regarding Life.

The other definition he overlooked is "not being estranged from"; obviously the one indicated here.

That one has to have life, to have a right to it, is self-evident - but let a good logician tackle that.

"Pursuit of happiness" is the one I've so often quoted and thought about.

Of course Rand borrowed it extensively, and I think she and the Founders had in common a vision of Man pursuing a peaceful, self-interested and TOTAL existence, to the extent of his own nature and choice. Again, it is "unalienable" only in the second definition of the word.

Liberty he also makes a strawman out of I think - inconsistency and self-contradiction by the slave-owning Founders was their error, not the Constitution's.

Not an Americaphile this guy, Ghs: "...so purely American that..."

Who was he?

Tony

Good comments.

Articles during the 18th century were usually unsigned, and I haven't been able to find out who wrote the comments. James Boswell (the Scot who wrote the famous bio of Samuel Johnson) was the editor of the Scots Magazine at that time, and it is possible that he wrote the comments, which were included as a footnote to the reprint of the Declaration. Boswell was hostile to the American cause, and it makes sense that the editor would write a note like this, but I suspect no one knows for sure.

For a book length critique of the Declaration, An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress (1776), by John Lind -- one that focuses on the list of specific grievances -- go here:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Google Books has made historical research oh-so-much easier. These and similar sources would have taken me a long time to track down in earlier years. In addition to rare libertarian books, I have also found many rare freethought books and periodicals. Amazing!

Ghs

[rhartford]

The quote above from The Scots Magazine (August 1776) is quite interesting.

“Prior to my having any right at all as a man, it is certain I must be a man, and such a man I certainly cannot be if I have no life;”

At the risk of reviving a different thread, just as one cannot predicate existence as an attribute of an existent, one cannot predicate “life” as a member of the set of actions a life has a right to take. The right of Liberty is the fundamental right because it is the recognition that a human being may take any action that meets the standard for being a political freedom. A thorough derivation of the political standard for what action is a political freedom and what action would violate a political freedom is not as simple as merely asserting a “right to life.”

The opponents of Liberty can too easily us the “right to life” to argue for policies that are opposed to political freedom.

[Brant Gaede]

Middle-aged complaining about errant youth. They got over it, eventually. Bismark, over 100 years later, knew what was coming. They had to do it or diss their own King and governance--for which they were on the wrong side of the ocean.

--Brant

[Xray]

The writer points out an obvious contradiction here:

"The next assigned cause and ground of their rebellion is, that every man hath an unalienable right to liberty; and here the words, as it happens, are not nonsense; but then they are not true; slaves there are in America; and where there are slaves , their liberty is alienated."

"If the Creator hath endowed man with an unalienable right to liberty, no reason in the world will justify the abridgement of that liberty, and a man hath a right to do everything that he thinks proper without controul or restraint; and upon the same principle, there can be no such things as servants, subjects, or government of any kind whatsoever."

Classic case of radical premise checking, the intention being to collapse the opponent's position:

"You base your position on premise X, but I have demonstrated that X applied contradicts what you are advocating."

[George H. Smith]

The writer points out an obvious contradiction here:

"The next assigned cause and ground of their rebellion is, that every man hath an unalienable right to liberty; and here the words, as it happens, are not nonsense; but then they are not true; slaves there are in America; and where there are slaves , their liberty is alienated."

"If the Creator hath endowed man with an unalienable right to liberty, no reason in the world will justify the abridgement of that liberty, and a man hath a right to do everything that he thinks proper without controul or restraint; and upon the same principle, there can be no such things as servants, subjects, or government of any kind whatsoever."

Classic case of radical premise checking, the intention being to collapse the opponent's position:

"You base your position on premise X, but I have demonstrated that X applied contradicts what you are advocating."

Jefferson, like most of his contemporaries, clearly understood the contradiction between slavery and the principles expressed in the Declaration.

The allegation that every law is a restriction of "liberty" is another ball of wax. The view expressed by the critic is essentially a Hobbesian view of freedom, whereas Jefferson embraced a Lockean view. This difference is a little difficult to explain briefly. I discuss the issue in detail in my forthcoming Cambridge book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism. I am also writing three or four essays on the Declaration of Independence for my Excursions page on the new Cato site -- two have already been finished -- and I will be discussing the problem in one of those.

Ghs

[syrakusos]

Just a little fact checking here... The comments so far assume that "inalienable" and "unalienable" and, of course, "alienable" all have their modern meanings. What did they mean in 1776? As far back as I can go reliably is my 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. The citation to sources is interesting, as it shows the writer of the Scots Magazine complaint to be twisting meanings into a thread was already spun.

UNALIENABLE a. Not alienable ; that cannot be alienated ; that may not be transferred ; as unalienable rights. Swift

INALIENABLE a. Unalienable ; that cannot be legally or justly transferred to another. The dominions of the king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

[Note that this nuance of inalienable natural rights coming 50 years after the Declaration of Independence may have come directly from that, rather than pre-existing in the common language before that. -- MEM]

ALIENABLE a. That may be sold, or transferred to another ; as land is alienable according to the laws of the State.

[George H. Smith]

Just a little fact checking here... The comments so far assume that "inalienable" and "unalienable" and, of course, "alienable" all have their modern meanings. What did they mean in 1776? As far back as I can go reliably is my 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. The citation to sources is interesting, as it shows the writer of the Scots Magazine complaint to be twisting meanings into a thread was already spun.

UNALIENABLE a. Not alienable ; that cannot be alienated ; that may not be transferred ; as unalienable rights. Swift

INALIENABLE a. Unalienable ; that cannot be legally or justly transferred to another. The dominions of the king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

[Note that this nuance of inalienable natural rights coming 50 years after the Declaration of Independence may have come directly from that, rather than pre-existing in the common language before that. -- MEM]

ALIENABLE a. That may be sold, or transferred to another ; as land is alienable according to the laws of the State.

Both "unalienable" and "inalienable" were used in Jefferson's day, and they were regarded as nothing more than interchangeable spellings. From my reading of 18th century rights literature, which is very extensive, "unalienable" appears to be more common than "inalienable," and other historians I've read agree.

Jefferson originally wrote "inalienable" in his Rough Draft, which referred to "rights inherent & inalienable." It is unclear exactly when the change to "unalienable" was made, or who made it. In his detailed reconstruction of the various drafts and changes, Carl Becker (The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, p. 175), speculated:

There is no indication that Congress changed "inalienable" to "unalienable"; but the latter form appears in the text made in the rough Journal [of Congress], in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft [which read "inalienable"], wrote "unalienable." ...Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. "Unalienable" may have been the customary form in the eighteenth century.

A different theory was proposed by the great Jeffersonian scholar Julian P. Boyd. In The Declaration of Independence: The Evolution of the Text, Boyd (pp. 33-34), referring to the change from "inalienable" to "unalienable," wrote:

This alteration may possibly have been made by the printer [John Dunlap] rather than at the suggestion of Congress. The Rough Draft read "inalienable" without any indication of change made in Congress. None of the copies made by Jefferson has the form "unalienable," and none save the Richard Henry Lee copy indicates that "inalienable" was changed to "unalienable" by Congress, and, according to its endorsement, the indication in the margin of that copy of changes that took place in Congress was made not by Jefferson but by Arthur Lee. The copy printed by Dunlap and inserted in the Rough Journal of Congress is the first official copy that has the form "unalienable," though it will be noticed that the copy taken by John Adams used that spelling. Both forms were apparently current in the eighteenth century but, since this is the only change in Jefferson's spelling made by Congress -- or by any of the Committee -- and since none of Jefferson's copies indicate a change made by Congress, it may possibly be that we are indebted to John Dunlap, or a faulty proofreader, for this one.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

In the second passage quoted in my last post, Julian Boyd refers to the Richard Henry Lee copy of the Declaration. Boyd's point is a little confusing, so here is what he was getting at.

The Lee copy, which is in Jefferson's handwriting, is one of the copies of the Declaration (as reported to Congress by the Committee of Five) that Jefferson gave to various people. The copy in question was sent by Jefferson on 8 July 1776 to Richard Henry Lee, a fellow Virginian who made the original resolution for American independence and who was one of the signers of the Declaration. In the Lee copy, which reads "inherent and inalienable rights," the words "inherent and inalienable" are underlined, and in the left margin we find the correction "certain unalienable rights." This insertion is in the handwriting of Arthur Lee, a younger brother of Richard.

All of Jefferson's versions have been photographically reproduced in Boyd's book. I took a look at the Lee copy. It appears to incorporate all the changes that appear in the final version of the Declaration. But since these alterations were made by Arthur Lee at a later time, they don't tell us anything about when the changes were made or who made them.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

The "truths" the the DOI says are self-evident are anything but self evident. For example: the proposition that mean are made unequal by nature is clearly not self contradictory and is largely true in fact.

The DOI was a propaganda piece and a motherhood statement. But it was well done, and served a useful political purpose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

The "truths" the the DOI says are self-evident are anything but self evident. For example: the proposition that mean are made unequal by nature is clearly not self contradictory and is largely true in fact.

The DOI was a propaganda piece and a motherhood statement. But it was well done, and served a useful political purpose.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The meaning of "self-evident" in the Declaration has elicited an enormous amount of scholarly commentary and controversy. Some historians, such as Morton White, link it to Locke's treatment in Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Garry Wills traced the expression to the "Common Sense" philosophy of the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid. One historian claimed it relied on a logic text that Jefferson read while he was a student at William and Mary. None of these explanations works, in my opinion, and I have read all the sources in question (including the obscure logic text)..

Keep in mind that Jefferson originally wrote "sacred and undeniable" in his Rough Draft. "Self-evident" was a later editorial change. Whether Franklin made or suggested the change, or whether Jefferson did it on his own, is irrelevant in this context. Jefferson later said that changes in his Rough Draft were merely "verbal alterations," thereby indicating that the change was made for reasons of style, not substance. In other words, by "self-evident," Jefferson basically meant "undeniable."

This makes sense, for the following reasons. Note how the Declaration says "We hold these truths to be self-evident."The "we" here refers to the American people. As Jefferson later put it, the statement of principles was intended to be "an expression of the American mind." Jefferson expressly denied that he attempted to formulate new or novel principles; he merely wished to summarize what most Americans already believed.

Thus by writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Jefferson was saying, in effect, "These principles are our starting point. Few if any Americans will deny them." The point was to persuade American fence-sitters and potential loyalists to the cause of independence, so Jefferson began by establishing common ground that even most critics of independence would accept. The term "self-evident" should be understood in this context.

Technically considered, "self-evident" was not the best choice of words -- the original "sacred and undeniable" would have been more accurate -- but Jefferson, who was attuned to the rhythm and cadence of sentences, decided on "self-evident." After the Declaration had been distributed throughout the colonies, it was read aloud for large gatherings. Indeed, many pamphlets of that era, such as Paine's Common Sense, were written more for the ear than for the eye, because they would be read aloud in taverns and coffee-houses.

There can be little doubt that Jefferson was writing for the ear, in some cases, while making stylistic revisions, some of which sacrificed philosophical accuracy. There are other examples of this as well.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Thus by writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Jefferson was saying, in effect, "These principles are our starting point. Few if any Americans will deny them." The point was to persuade American fence-sitters and potential loyalists to the cause of independence, so Jefferson began by establishing common ground that even most critics of independence would accept. The term "self-evident" should be understood in this context.

Here, without any of the historical details, is an illustration of my point. Consider the following two statements:

1. It is undeniable that altruism is bad.

2. It is self-evident that altruism is bad.

We can readily agree that neither statement is true. Now consider two other statements, which are closer in spirit and structure to "We hold these truths to be self-evident....":

3.. It is undeniable that Ayn Rand regarded altruism as bad.

4.. It is self-evident that Ayn Rand regarded altruism as bad.

Is it undeniable that Ayn Rand regarded altruism as bad? I would say so, at least for anyone who has a tolerable knowledge of Rand's ideas. But is it self-evident that Ayn Rand regarded altruism as bad? Well, this an interesting question -- one that intersects with Peikioff's discussion of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

I won't say any more about this for now. I would rather read what others have to say.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Any fact can be denied. The denial of a fact is a falsehood but not necessarily a logical contradiction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Any fact can be denied. The denial of a fact is a falsehood but not necessarily a logical contradiction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't think you got the point of my posts.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

After the Declaration had been distributed throughout the colonies, it was read aloud for large gatherings. Indeed, many pamphlets of that era, such as Paine's Common Sense, were written more for the ear than for the eye, because they would be read aloud in taverns and coffee-houses.

George,

This is a hell of a good point I had not considered before.

Thanks.

This reminds me somewhat of the present-day political focus on sound-bites for video and audio media. The message of a candidate can be really good, but if he doesn't have catchy sound-bites to go with it. he doesn't get media traction. The sound-bite can be vague to the point of meaningless to work (i.e., "Yes we can...") if it hits the right emotional spot.

btw - I have been studying public presentation for a while. From what I have seen taught in several places, preoccupation with rhythm is standard fare for political speechwriters. Funny how I never considered the possibility that this was the case in earlier times...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The meaning of "self-evident" in the Declaration has elicited an enormous amount of scholarly commentary and controversy.

Self evident means necessarily true. The denial of a self evident proposition immediately yields a logical contradiction.

For example: It is necessarily the case that there are no 4 sided triangles. To assert otherwise would imply 4 = 3 which is a contradiction.

The denial of equality of humans yields no such contradiction.

From the point of view of formal logic, the DOI is nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Who said the Founding Fathers always wrote according to formal logic--especially seen from the 21st century?

And who says formal logic is the most effective form of public political persuasion, anyway?

That's never been the case at any time I know of in human history.

Have you considered what the Declaration of Independence was used for?

I seriously doubt it was conceived to illustrate tautology or correct syllogisms in a university logic class. I think Jefferson had bigger fish to fry.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

The meaning of "self-evident" in the Declaration has elicited an enormous amount of scholarly commentary and controversy.

Self evident means necessarily true. The denial of a self evident proposition immediately yields a logical contradiction.

For example: It is necessarily the case that there are no 4 sided triangles. To assert otherwise would imply 4 = 3 which is a contradiction.

The denial of equality of humans yields no such contradiction.

From the point of view of formal logic, the DOI is nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm well aware of what "self-evident" means in formal logic. I am also well aware that Jefferson was not writing a treatise on formal logic.

In fact, the term "self-evident" has been used in various ways in the history of philosophy. . In Lockean epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that connects two ideas without the need for an intervening idea. The 18th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid, whose influence in America extended well into the 19th century, gave a different meaning to "self-evident." These and other philosophers were well-schooled in formal logic. .

Ghs

[john42t]

This makes sense, for the following reasons. Note how the Declaration says "We hold these truths to be self-evident."The "we" here refers to the American people. As Jefferson later put it, the statement of principles was intended to be "an expression of the American mind." Jefferson expressly denied that he attempted to formulate new or novel principles; he merely wished to summarize what most Americans already believed.

Thus by writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Jefferson was saying, in effect, "These principles are our starting point. Few if any Americans will deny them." The point was to persuade American fence-sitters and potential loyalists to the cause of independence, so Jefferson began by establishing common ground that even most critics of independence would accept. The term "self-evident" should be understood in this context.

Well, if you already see it in this context, isn't there a rather ugly question begged?

After all, any collectivist who wanted to "persuade" "fence-sitters" and "potential loyalists" (think internationalist/zionist) to move under one's own national rule needs an irrational ideology to justify it with - I assume this bit to be uncontroversial in this forum.

Now I don't know about you, but "self-evident" in regards to something that sounds nice and is written in a political declaration gets my mysticism-alarm ringing. "Sacred and undeniable" doesn't make it any better.

When I then take into account that many scholars have written big books about what it could have meant, then I have a working theory, and it's not a nice one.

The fact that a war followed (with drafted men) comes on top of that.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm with the fence-sitters and loyalists.

But I promise I'll wave the flag from 1933 on.

And not criticize any founding father until it's over in 1990.

[BaalChatzaf]

.

In fact, the term "self-evident" has been used in various ways in the history of philosophy. . In Lockean epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that connects two ideas without the need for an intervening idea. The 18th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid, whose influence in America extended well into the 19th century, gave a different meaning to "self-evident." These and other philosophers were well-schooled in formal logic. .

Ghs

No they were not. Formal (mathematical) logic was invented by George Boole in the middle of the 19th century.

I am sure any well educated gentleman of the 18 th century was schooled in Aristotelian categorical logic as modified during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Probably the Port-Royal logic was used as the text book.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

This makes sense, for the following reasons. Note how the Declaration says "We hold these truths to be self-evident."The "we" here refers to the American people. As Jefferson later put it, the statement of principles was intended to be "an expression of the American mind." Jefferson expressly denied that he attempted to formulate new or novel principles; he merely wished to summarize what most Americans already believed.

Thus by writing "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Jefferson was saying, in effect, "These principles are our starting point. Few if any Americans will deny them." The point was to persuade American fence-sitters and potential loyalists to the cause of independence, so Jefferson began by establishing common ground that even most critics of independence would accept. The term "self-evident" should be understood in this context.

Well, if you already see it in this context, isn't there a rather ugly question begged?

After all, any collectivist who wanted to "persuade" "fence-sitters" and "potential loyalists" (think internationalist/zionist) to move under one's own national rule needs an irrational ideology to justify it with - I assume this bit to be uncontroversial in this forum.

Now I don't know about you, but "self-evident" in regards to something that sounds nice and is written in a political declaration gets my mysticism-alarm ringing. "Sacred and undeniable" doesn't make it any better.

When I then take into account that many scholars have written big books about what it could have meant, then I have a working theory, and it's not a nice one.

The fact that a war followed (with drafted men) comes on top of that.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm with the fence-sitters and loyalists.

But I promise I'll wave the flag from 1933 on.

And not criticize any founding father until it's over in 1990.

I guess Americans got miffed when King George III refused even to consider their efforts at reconciliation in 1774, and when he declared instead that the New England colonies were in a state of rebellion, told Americans they "must either submit or triumph," and then raised thousands of troops, including feared German mercenaries, to conquer the colonies. I guess the Americans decided to fight instead of surrender. Eighteenth-century Americans were funny that way. Go figure.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

.

In fact, the term "self-evident" has been used in various ways in the history of philosophy. . In Lockean epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that connects two ideas without the need for an intervening idea. The 18th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid, whose influence in America extended well into the 19th century, gave a different meaning to "self-evident." These and other philosophers were well-schooled in formal logic. .

Ghs

No they were not. Formal (mathematical) logic was invented by George Boole in the middle of the 19th century.

I am sure any well educated gentleman of the 18 th century was schooled in Aristotelian categorical logic as modified during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Probably the Port-Royal logic was used as the text book.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Formal logic is not the same thing as mathematical logic. "Formal" refers to the form of propositions rather than to their content -- -- hence "formal fallacies" and similar expressions that were in use long before Boole came along.

Mathematical logic is often called symbolic logic. Both syllogistic logic and symbolic logic are types of formal logic.

From the Wiki article on logic:

The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics.

Ghs

[john42t]

I guess Americans got miffed when King George III refused even to consider their efforts at reconciliation in 1774, and when he declared instead that the New England colonies were in a state of rebellion, told Americans they "must either submit or triumph," and then raised thousands of troops, including feared German mercenaries, to conquer the colonies. I guess the Americans decided to fight instead of surrender. Eighteenth-century Americans were funny that way. Go figure.

Mercanaries are fighting voluntarily, so did the rest of George's army, right? The Americans had to draft their countrymen in order to win the war, is that correct?

These are honest questions. You're the expert, my knowledge on this topic is extremely superficial.

[Selene]

I guess Americans got miffed when King George III refused even to consider their efforts at reconciliation in 1774, and when he declared instead that the New England colonies were in a state of rebellion, told Americans they "must either submit or triumph," and then raised thousands of troops, including feared German mercenaries, to conquer the colonies. I guess the Americans decided to fight instead of surrender. Eighteenth-century Americans were funny that way. Go figure.

Mercanaries are fighting voluntarily, so did the rest of George's army, right? The Americans had to draft their countrymen in order to win the war, is that correct?

These are honest questions. You're the expert, my knowledge on this topic is extremely superficial.

John:

It is a good question. I was no sure of the answer.

Colonial to 1861

In

colonial times

, the

Thirteen Colonies

used a

militia

system for local defense. Colonial militia laws—and

after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.

For long-term operations,

conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the

American Revolutionary War

, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state

Continental Army

units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript.

President

James Madison

and his

Secretary of War

James Monroe

unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the

War of 1812

.

[2]

This proposal was fiercely criticized on the

Senate

floor by legendary

Massachusetts

Senator

Daniel Webster

in "one of [his] most eloquent efforts."

[3]

Adam

Post Script:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_4/15_4_2.pdf <<<< see page 30...and pages 40-51 which deal with the Revolutionary War and conscription.