Charles Kesler is a distinguished professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. Courtesy | Claremont Institute

The roots of modern American political disputes can be traced to the editing of Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Kesler, senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, said in a lecture titled “Editing the Declaration: Natural Rights and Political Rights in the American Revolution” last week.

Kesler was the keynote speaker of a three-day colloquium organized in his honor in Searle Center, and his lecture

The colloquium was based on the release of a “festschrift” — a collection of essays published in the form of a book to honor a scholar — titled “Leisure with Dignity” based on one of Kesler’s favorite quotes by Cicero.

It was hosted by Hillsdale’s Van Andel School of Statesmanship and open to students, faculty, and staff.

Kesler is a distinguished professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, 25-year editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and a scholar who studied under mentors such as William F. Buckley Jr. and Harry Jaffa, two leading figures in 20th century American conservatism.

Kesler wrote the introduction and commentary for the Rossiter edition of “The Federalist Papers,” which is the most widely sold and taught version in circulation.

He has authored and contributed to many books including “I am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism” and “Saving the Republic: The Federalist Papers and the American Founding.” He’s also written several essays, including “Trump and the Conservative Cause” and “The Old New Left and the New New Left.”

Kesler said editing is important in this age where journalism, politics, and book publishing have become increasingly ugly. 

“I think it would be a better world if we had more and better editors,” Kesler said. “Editors aren’t perfect, but at their best, they introduce an element of reflection, circumspection, and regard for the audience and the argument that even the best authors could use from time to time.”

The editors of Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence were the members of the Second Continental Congress.

“They conducted one of the most successful exercises in group editing in history,” Kesler said. 

Their edits included grammatical and verbiage changes as well as alterations to complete paragraphs; a quarter of Jefferson’s original text was omitted altogether, Kesler said. Notably, the editors completely removed Jefferson’s indictment of the international slave trade.

According to Kesler, Jefferson was distressed by these alterations.

“He had arranged the Declaration as a kind of legal or political brief,” Kesler said. 

According to Kesler, Jefferson’s format of the Declaration included a list of injustices perpetrated by George III against the laws of nature, rights, and duties of the American people and culminated in the justification for America’s war for independence being due to these injustices.

The rights of the Americans — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — were mixed with the political rights that the Americans possessed through the constitution of the British Empire.

“Despite the advantages that an indictment of the slave trade would bring to future discussions the congress was almost certainly right to strike out the entire paragraph,” Kesler said. 

Jefferson’s indictment of the slave trade removed culpability from Virginia, South Carolina, and the other American colonies for the violation of natural rights given to the black man and blamed George III directly, Kesler said. 

“Jefferson’s interpretation of events came close to what today we would call virtue signaling,” Kesler said. “Whichever way the king turned, he was on the wrong side of history and the Americans were on the right side of history.”

The consensus of the congress to edit Jefferson’s writing reflected a cooperation that dissolved in the 1790s with the bitter partisanship between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.

“We haven’t really gotten far in the terms of debate from the 1790s to the 2020s,” Kesler said.

The two parties in the 1790s disagreed on the best way to synthesize the natural and political rights of Americans.

“One root of these partisan disagreements can already be seen in some of the differences between Adams and Jefferson over how they interpreted the Declaration of Independence,” Kesler said. “I think they did not disagree about the nature of right, but they did disagree about political right and about what you get when you combine civil right with natural right.”

Kesler compared two letters, one from Thomas Jefferson and one from John Adams which he said summarized their perspectives on the American system of government.

“In Adams’ letter, there is no promise of worldwide liberation or enlightenment, no suggestion that palpable or scientific proofs would come to the rescue of moral or self-evident truths, no claim that the human mind would progress without end,” Kesler said. “Instead a sober prediction that the future will be like the past, susceptible to use and abuse, virtue and vice, against good government and terrible misery.” 

Adams and Jefferson articulated largely dissimilar conclusions as to the end of political rights. Adams’ view did not share Jefferson’s idea of continued human progress.

First year graduate student Sam Kimzey commented on the influence that Kesler’s teachings have on conservative thought, including Hillsdale. 

“It’s a rare privilege and opportunity to hear from someone who has had such an outsized influence on Hillsdale’s political teaching,” Kimzey said.

Some of Kesler’s former students who contributed to the festschrift include Matthew Spalding, vice president of Washington operations and dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government, and Ronald J. Pestritto, dean of the graduate school and professor of politics at Hillsdale’s main campus.

“All of us who contributed all recognize that Charles is one of the best teachers we ever had,” Glenn Ellmers, one of the editors of the festschrift said. “He’s one of the most intelligent and well read people we’ve ever met. One of the best classroom teachers.” 

The relationship between Claremont and Hillsdale has persisted for more than 25 years. Larry Arnn, before becoming president of Hillsdale College, was president of the Claremont Institute. He hired Kesler as editor of the Claremont Review of Books, a position he still holds today.

“I hope by now it is clear how much all of you are being influenced indirectly by his work,” Pestritto said in his opening remarks. “To the extent that any teaching, any guidance has been useful to you, that comes in large measure, through my own imperfect attempts to imitate this very great man.”