Thomas Jefferson's "Self-Evident" Argument

Couldn't we say that there's an underlying argument beneath his claims in the declaration? If it's debatable, then what are the arguments that would support this famous declaration being an argument rather than just poetry?

Surely, this famous claim/declaration/argument wasn't self-evident to King George or those who were loyal to the British crown.

 

Couldn't we say that there's an underlying argument beneath his claims in the declaration? If it's debatable, then what are the arguments that would support this famous declaration being an argument rather than just poetry?

Surely, this famous claim/declaration/argument wasn't self-evident to King George or those who were loyal to the British crown.

I don't think that those who were fighting for the British king would have actually argued against anything he was saying.  They would have instead argued that what they were doing was compatible with these self-evident truths because British rule was not 'destructive to those ends'.

Basically what Jefferson is also doing is an appeal to common belief.

Really? So the British loyalists agreed with the ideas that King George was created equal to peasants, that they were born with rights that weren't alienable by the British monarchs, that King George's power should come from their consent, & that the loyalists should have the ability to overthrow the monarchs & create a new government? That sounds very surprising. What evidence is there to support this?

That they are saying that it is self-evident, implies a wide consensus behind the ideas exists, at least in America.  You cannot go around saying something is self-evident without such a consensus existing, it just looks silly.

The document does not say that you have the right to withdraw consent to a government once it has been given, only that it (originally) derives from the consent of the governed.  The ground of dispute between the loyalists and Americans is whether the King has in fact violated the fundamental rights people believe they were granted by the creator.

The right to alter/overthrow government derives from it's violating of your fundamental rights.  So as long the King has not violated your fundamental rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, you are obligated to obey the King.  It is not an unconditional advocacy of democracy, the consent part is historical (before government existed people freely gave consent to be governed). 

The ability to decide their government in the present is entirely conditional.  If you read carefully, you will find the document is actually saying that UNLESS the present government violates their fundamental rights, they have no right to alter or abolish their government.  So if you believe the King has not violated his subject's fundamental rights, you are not justified in overthrowing him and are obligated to obey him.

I guess my point is this document is not meant to be an argument, but a declaration—a written affirmation which all who follow already agree. "I am strong. I am special, etc." Anyone has every right to argue with the "self-evident" nature of these claims.