The Declaration of Independence was penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, with the editorial input of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. It’s one of the most recognized and most quoted documents in human history, but is it ever truly understood? Politicians today quote the declaration when promoting progressive causes, citing the “all men are created equal” line, but they’re borrowing from Lincoln, not Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln’s messaging on the subject became the prevailing wisdom of the document and was carried into the 20th century by conservative thinkers such as Harry Jaffa and Leo Strauss, and civil rights advocates like Martin Luther King, Jr. But what did Jefferson actually mean when he wrote it?

Jefferson wrote in 1825 (he died in 1826) that the Declaration of Independence was to be “an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” He did not declare that it “find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of….” The Declaration was never intended to be a radical or revolutionary statement. When Jefferson stated that “all men are created equal” he was codifying existing legal principles of English common law that he believed were not being honored in respects to the colonies.

Great Britain did have a constitution, although not in the written sense in which we think of ours. The Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta and (mainly) the English Bill of Rights established that there were limits to the authority of the monarch. This composed the British constitution, along with years of case law. It is an uncodified document. Jefferson was taking a traditional approach here, not a revolutionary one. All men were created equal – under the law. Jefferson believed the King was violating the law by acting above the uncodified principles of the British constitution. He did not believe the British government itself was tyrannical or unjust. The Declaration was an indictment of King George III, not a legal or founding document.

Jefferson was also influenced by George Mason of Virginia’s Declaration of Resolves (Mason was also borrowing from Locke’s Treatises on Civil Government) basically streamlining Mason’s language that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights…namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and maintaining happiness and safety” into Jefferson’s “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Jefferson meant that all citizens or freeholders are, as Mason wrote, born “equally free and independent” under the law. Jefferson equated “happiness” with property and safety. Slaves were not citizens or freeholders, therefore not subject to the same law. From a 21st century perspective, this is unjust. But 18th century norms and the existing laws that Jefferson invoked need to be understood to truly comprehend the Declaration. It was always meant to solidify the post-enlightenment idea that government is not above the people and the monarch was not above the law. Slavery existed in British common law, and as Jefferson stated the Declaration was never intended as a “revolutionary document,” therefore those laws carried over to the American colonies.

Lincoln took a different approach to the document. From his October 16, 1854 speech:

“The doctrine of self government is right -absolutely and eternally right- but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”

Lincoln is taking a textualist approach to the document, not an originalist. Those who followed his interpretations did as well, to the point that this could now considered the mainstream consensus on the Declaration of Independence. As mentioned, the Declaration is not a legal document. However, this line of thinking has bled into documents that are, like our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This happens frequently with the Supreme Court’s textualist interpretations of original documents. This creates dangerous precedent. If we guess what laws or declarations are supposed to mean without considering what they were originally intended to do, there is no limiting principle on government power. This is regardless of whether the cause is just, like equal rights, or not. Unchecked power works in both directions.

Originalism is important. When we infer meaning, or try to interpret through a 21st century lens, we lose sight of context and history. Inconvenient truths are integral to understanding real history. Ignoring or twisting them to meet modern criteria means we can never learn from the past. Most of history is lost to time. We cannot get inside the heads of so many figures that played crucial roles in shaping human events. Fortunately, we have Jefferson and many of the founder’s original thoughts, debates and ideas on paper. It is important that we keep those sources in mind to better understand today.