Penn Today spoke with historian Daniel Richter, philosopher Jennifer Morton, and democratic governance expert Claire Finkelstein about the Declaration’s historical context, political ideas, and evolving legacy.
4 min. read
The Declaration of Independence, arguably one of the most important documents in the history of the United States, marked the moment when the 13 colonies formally declared their separation from Great Britain and asserted their right to self-government.
Adopted on July 4, 1776, the Declaration is celebrating its 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026. Penn Today spoke with historian Daniel Richter and philosopher Jennifer Morton from Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences, and democratic governance expert Claire Finkelstein from Penn Carey Law, about its historical context, political ideas, and evolving legacy.
More than a break with Britain: Turning a rebellion into a nation
Even in 1776, the Declaration had multiple purposes, says Richter.
It was directed outward “to a candid world,” laying the legal framework for becoming “Free and Independent States.”
“The point was to get European powers—most notably France and Spain—to treat the 13 colonies not as rebellious subjects engaged in a civil war but as actual nation states that could make trade deals, buy weapons, and make military alliances,” he explains.
But it was also directed inward, as a statement of united purpose among the 13 colonies.
“It was a call to arms, uniting the revolutionaries and deepening the war,” says Finkelstein. “It is clear that the signatories to the Declaration of Independence did not just see it as a break with Britain in the current context—they thought that they were laying down more universal principles and explaining the break in terms of those principles.”
Old ideas, a new approach to power: Justifying a revolution
Core to the Declaration, says Morton, is its presentation of ideas about the purpose of government that were not universally accepted at the time.
“The central task of government is to protect our rights. We don’t owe our allegiance to the government. Government earns our allegiance by fulfilling its task,” says Morton. “It was revolutionary to present these ideas as self-evident truths.”
This idea drew heavily on Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, who argued that governments exist to protect natural rights and may be overthrown when they fail to do so, she explains.
“Locke suggests that when government has failed to protect their fundamental rights and has become tyrannical, revolution can be justified,” says Morton. “In the Declaration of Independence, we see this idea very much at work. The drafters of the Declaration clearly take pains to point out all the ways in which the British government’s actions have crossed over into tyrannical rule.”
Richter agrees, adding that the grievances in the Declaration are directed solely at the king. It charged him with violating what Britons on both sides of the Atlantic believed to be the main responsibility of a king: to maintain order and protect people’s liberties.
“Breaking with the king was a big deal indeed,” he says. “The Declaration commits its supporters not just to making a political break with Britain but also to committing to a radical experiment in the nature of government.”
The signing of the Declaration, Finkelstein says, came at great personal risk. “Signing the Declaration was an act of treason,” she says. “If we didn’t win the war, they were going to hang.”
A complicated legacy: Reconsidering its historical significance today
Although the Declaration is regarded today as a defining statement of American ideals, it received little attention from those in power in the first few decades after 1776, says Richter.
“The relative lack of attention is probably explained by two things,” he says. “At first, it really didn’t have that much new to say. And then, over time, what it did say became ever more dangerous to say out loud in a nation built on enslaved labor and increasingly divided over that fact.”
Nonetheless, by the 1840s, radicals advocating women’s rights and abolition thrust the Declaration back into the public eye by pointing out how far the nation had strayed from its most famous assertion—that “all men are created equal.”
It was only during the Civil War, says Richter, that the Declaration reentered the political mainstream—when Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that “the proposition that all men are created equal” was the basis of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
For the signers of the Declaration, Finkelstein says, the fight for “equality” was a central motivation and ideal that lay behind the Declaration. For them it represented the rejection of status based on heredity and nobility.
“We regard the commitment of the founders to equality with a lot of irony now,” acknowledges Finkelstein, given the lack of equality extended to Black people and women in 18th century America. “But they were fighting a profoundly stratified class system in which the ability to vote, political standing, and being a landowner were all tied to nobility of birth. No amount of hard work or commitment to ideals or even accumulation of wealth could overturn that hierarchy.”
The Founding Fathers did not intend the Declaration to protect the rights of all people, even though that is how it is read today, agrees Morton.
“Our understanding of who ‘the people’ are might differ today, and I hope it does,” she says. “But the idea that government exists ultimately for and by the people remains a powerful foundational political thought.”
When the Schuylkill swallowed the city: Lessons from Hurricane Ida’s historic flood
New Penn research shows that Hurricane Ida wasn’t a once-in-a-century anomaly but a preview of how climate change, urbanization, and aging infrastructure are rewriting flood risk.
The Fed explained: What it does and why it matters
Former Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker and financial historian Peter Conti-Brown, both Wharton professors, unpack the central bank’s origins, its unusual structure, and the quiet ways it shapes the economy
How population changes are impacting primary education worldwide
Research from Penn sociologist Emily Hannum and colleagues reveals regional trends in whether school-age populations are increasing, plateauing, or decreasing—and shows how different countries are responding.
A bioengineered bean gum from the lab of Penn Dental’s Henry Daniell is found to reduce the levels of three microbes associated with head and neck squamous cell cancer to almost zero, without affecting the beneficial bacteria normally found in the mouth.
Fighting oral cancer with bioengineered chewing gum
Research led by Penn Dental’s Henry Daniell shows that antiviral and antibacterial chewing gums reduce the levels of three microbes linked to worse outcomes in oral cancers, paving the way for more effective and affordable therapies.
