The Talking Heads are all adither over the mess that DT has made of Independence Day on the Mall in D.C. So….forget about the tanks, and his pep rally at the Lincoln Memorial (desecration claims seem apropos to me), and the Air Force One flyover. The Man Who is a Legend in His Own Mind will have his moment emulating Putin, and Kim Jong Un among others but we need to keep our minds on the Prize. The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence and Its Legacy
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
So begins the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. But what was the Declaration? Why do Americans continue to celebrate its public announcement as the birthday of the United States, July 4, 1776? While that date might just mean a barbecue and fireworks to some today, what did the Declaration mean when it was written in the summer of 1776?
1) On the one hand, the Declaration was a formal LEGAL DOCUMENT that announced to the world the reasons that led the thirteen colonies to separate from the British Empire. Much of the Declaration sets forth a list of abuses that were blamed on King George III. One charge levied against the King sounds like a Biblical plague: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” In this it is a fundamentally a condemnation of tyranny, rule that ignores the law and the rights upon which good law is based.
2) The Declaration was not only legalistic, but practical too. Americans hoped to get financial or military support from other countries that were traditional enemies of the British. That the countries to whom they were appealing were still governed by monarchs and hereditary aristocracy was not lost on the Founders. Franklin captured this in these words: “I know that it is not a little bizarre that we are proposing that we should lie down other tyrants to rid ourselves of George and his Lords, but those tyrants are other people’s concern and perhaps those people will one day read this testament and turn to the path of liberty for themselves.
3) The Declaration’s most famous sentence reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Even today, this inspirational language expresses a profound commitment to human equality.
This ideal of equality has certainly influenced the course of American history. Early women’s rights activists at SENECA FALLS in 1848 modeled their “DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS” in precisely the same terms as the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” they said, “that all men and women are created equal.” Similarly, the African-American anti-slavery activist DAVID WALKER challenged white Americans in 1829 to “See your Declaration Americans!!! Do you understand your own language?” Walker dared America to live up to its self-proclaimed ideals. If all men were created equal, then why was slavery legal?
4) Yes, the ideal of full human equality has been a major legacy (and ongoing challenge) of the Declaration of Independence. But the signers of 1776 did not have quite that radical an agenda. The possibility for sweeping social changes was certainly discussed in 1776. For instance, ABIGAIL ADAMSsuggested to her husband John Adams that in the “new Code of Laws” that he helped draft at the Continental Congress, he should, “Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them.” It didn’t work out that way. Those who ratified the declaration were ALL men, ALL educated, ALL privileged, ALL white and MOSTLY well to do. They were the elite in their society.
Thomas Jefferson provides the classic example of the contradictions of the Revolutionary Era. Although he was the chief author of the Declaration, he also owned slaves, as did many of his fellow signers. They did not see full human equality as a positive social goal. Nevertheless, Jefferson was prepared to criticize slavery much more directly than most of his colleagues. His original draft of the Declaration included a long passage that condemned King George for allowing the slave trade to flourish. This implied criticism of slavery — a central institution in early American society — was deleted by a vote of the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS before the delegates signed the Declaration.
5) So what did the signers intend by using such idealistic language? Look at what follows the line, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
These lines suggest that the whole purpose of GOVERNMENT is to secure the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS and that government gets its power from “the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.” If that consent is betrayed, then “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish” their government. When the Declaration was written, this was a radical statement. The idea that the people could reject a monarchy (based on the superiority of a king) and replace it with a republican government (based on the consent of the people) was a revolutionary change.
While the signers of the Declaration thought of “the people” more narrowly than we do today, they articulated principles that are still vital markers of American ideals. And while the Declaration did not initially lead to equality for all, it did provide an inspiring start on working toward equality.
The Declaration of Independence was very well written, and as you pointed out, it were purposely edited to remove Jefferson’s mention of the slave trade. Such cannot be mentioned in the same breath and on the same paper as the “elite” class. No, no way.
MLK used to love to quote the famed founding document. He did so as a reminder to those who adore it of just how unjust and unequal America really is.
One day, as King said in other words (not verbatim), we as a nation will practice what we preach.
As of now, this year far removed from then, it is something we have yet to do. Had we lived up to the words so well written certain results would be apparent and evident, the ERA would have long ago been passed and the oppressed would have been made whole. But sadly, those things may never be, and we as a nation may never live up to our potential.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*B4UJlUhO8AaW8cxL
Photo by Antônia Felipe on Unsplash
Interesting image…..yes..provocative.
That the Declaration has been lost, and found, and lost and found again and again is not surprising. On July 2, 1777, not a single member of Congress remembered the anniversary of the independence resolution until a day too late. Celebrations were scheduled for a day later, on July 4, 1776.
While various preachers and individual towns hosted Fourth of July celebrations throughout the remainder of the 18th century, it all seemed to left to local leadership. The holiday became more widespread after the U.S. stood its ground against the British during the War of 1812. “The declaration’s practical purposes were served,” Fitz said. “The United States’ independence had been declared and secured by 1815.” The threat posed by foreign seizure of American lands had, for all practical purposes been ended for good….but the dangers posed by internal dissension were far from defused.
A variety of issues ushered in a new era for the declaration as anti-slavery activists began using the rhetoric of its second sentence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” to advocate for true equality. Women suffragettes, immigrant leaders, and crusaders for the under-privileged would cite the Declaration as their touchstone.
In a July 5, 1852, address commemorating the 76th anniversary of the declaration’s public release, Frederick Douglass reflected on the July 2 resolution, “Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and today you reap the fruits of their success.” He asked, “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”
“Gradually,” Fitz said, the newer reading of the declaration as a document for equality “became the primary meaning that we remember today.”
The virtues of the declaration, the debated definitions and practices of freedom, prosperity and fair government, shared internationally on July 4, have taken on new life thanks to the independence declared July 2.
As of today, the meaning of freedom; to self rule; self actualize, liberty, and pursuit happiness, remains as it was. A glorious reflection of what those ideas meant for the founding fathers, other selected men of the time, and their inheritors, but not, of course, the lessors.
Frederick Douglas let it be know in his day that it was’t an all inclusive document, and as such, those not included in its charm and embrace saw it as nothing more than an enshrinement of the self-proclaimed worthiness of it’s male authors and their inheritors; and a flippant declaration that all others were unfit and of unworthy inclusion.
Those not included couldn’t be expected to praise the rights granted by certain men unto themselves but not others. Yet they were expected to.
The image was secondary.
Hmmmm…..I, in fact, do know that ALL were, in fact, educated men. They represented the prosperous classes and each had received an education. Some attended colleges, some “grammar schools” (the equivalent of high schools), some divinity schools, some had learned complex trades including business. All could read and write- not that unusual- but were had an awareness of the literature of the day, of correspondence and of the press. They had each been appointment by colonial legislatures which in turn represented the leadership of each colony.
Your personal comments about me are out of place. Respond to the arguments in play. Clearly your goal is to complain.
The carousel at the top of the front page is an auto function….there are 10 stories in it and the selection is based on several criteria including length. Have you anything substantive to say?
If you think that I have not said anything substantive, then you didn’t read it. Another lie. Another discussion site ruined by trolls and hacks. Oh, well.
I am a doctorally prepared American Political Historian. What I report is easily verified if you want to do so. It is pretty clear that you are trying to provoke a childish squabble. I am not interested.
Yes I have a doctorate. You have demonstrated that you either lack the capacity to engage substantively or choose not too. In any case, your efforts here are argumentative rather than the presentation of arguments. You have yet to provide a cogent counter point to case I have presented. I doubt you are able to do so. I will leave it at that. When (if) you decide to engage in a real conversation, I will participate.
I, along with AdLib are the owners and Admin of this site and it would be appreciated if members addressed each other showing some respect. If you have an issue to discuss, every member can write an article and have it published. We are not in the least bit interested in petty squabbles from a previous site. Having opposing opinions is welcomed. Throwing out insults is not.
We thank you for your cooperation.
Clearly I am in full agreement.
We have so few rules here but this is one of them from the very beginning if anyone would like to read our “Terms of Use”.
https://planetpov.com/faq/terms-of-use/
Why is the Declaration of independence a legal document? If it is, of what sort? And, I thought that all-caps “shouting” isn’t allowed. Shouting it doesn’t make it true or accurate. It was more in the nature of a lengthy formal complaint with no legal authority. It announced a revolution, something that is necessarily extra-legal.
1) Passed by the Constitutional Convention of 1776 as an instrument of declaration……the separation of the 13 colonies from Britain. The text ends with these words:
“That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The Convention Members, three from each Colony (referred to as “States” as that was the common term for a political entity) which acted in the name of each of them. Thus the unanimous agreement is binding.
2) ALL CAPS WRITING FOR AN ENTIRE MESSAGE IS SHOUTING. Used for occasional EMPHASIS is not.”
I will be interested in what you have to offer by way of your own ideas.
Steppenwolf, as Kalima explained, the two of us are the owners and Admin of PlanetPOV and we have been for 10 years.
PlanetPOV was founded to create a haven for free expression, for and by people who wanted to have thoughtful and sincere conversations (and disagreements) about the issues that really mattered to them…unpolluted by those who think exchanging abuse and personal attacks is somehow acceptable conversation.
The good news here is, we have a zero tolerance here for trolls and personal attacks. It is part of our mission to provide an environment where people feel free to express themselves without the concern that they will be insulted and attacked for saying something, whether popular or unpopular with anyone else.
We’re about substance here, real opinions on real issues and agreements or disagreements based on the issues on the table, opinions and facts. Personal attacks are not part of any reasonable discussion, they are an intentional distraction and a petty waste of everyone’s time and energy. Folks here are free to disagree whenever and wherever on the issues but choosing instead to attack someone personally is beneath the quality of the community here.
Due to the personal attacks contained in some of your comments, those comments have been moderated. You can read our Terms of Use here so you can review how we require a modicum of decency at this site from all members.
That means that you can’t engage in insults or personal attacks against any member and no member may engage in insults or personal attacks against you. Feel free to pursue the issue, not the person.
It seems like such a simple and desirable rule that decent people could agree upon, that those who are interested in discussing issues and viewpoints with other folks out there, shouldn’t have to be subjected to abuse for openly expressing themselves.
That may not be everyone’s cup of tea. We had one member who was intent on bashing trolls and resented that we didn’t allow trolls here. That’s not what we’re about, feeding into the worst instincts of people. We want to encourage the best instincts of being conscientious about what’s happening in our country and world and recognizing that we’re all in this together, we’re all legitimate human beings entitled to our own views and deserve the same respect no matter how or why we disagree (unless one’s opinion is about disrespecting or being hateful towards others).
We each have to decide for ourselves what environment is most comfortable for us and best reflects who we are. PlanetPOV endeavors to offer a unique place in cyberspace where people can be passionate and opinionated while remaining decent human beings. That’s what we offer here so it’s left up to you, whether you do or don’t see that as a fit for you.
And there you go…..hope it brings him into the fold.
Interesting name choice though…although Steppenwolf is a reference to numerous subjects…..
Herman Hesse’s novel is my primary association.
Synopsis: Harry Haller, a middle-aged intellectual, moves into a lodging house in a medium-sized, generic town, which is never named. Despairing and melancholy, Harry feels himself to be “a wolf of the Steppes,” or “Steppenwolf,” adrift, alone, and angry in a world that is incomprehensible to him and offers him no joy. Thus he “stalks” through each day…..a psychoanalytic drama.
I think that you left out the most important thing about the novel, and the character. Harry discovers, through a series of chance encounters, that life, in our modern world, is the “Theatre of the Absurd.” He learns to cope, and be comfortable (as comfortable as he can ever be) being what he is. He can’t accept that the absurd is reality, but he realizes that he has connections to it, no matter how bizarre, and that he isn’t alone.
Why, exactly, are you allowed to insult me? You have said that you know what I am thinking. Not likely. I think that you’re abusive with your tone of superiority. It hurts.
This is substance. You set me up by reciting the premise of a great work of writing, and leaving off the meaning and purpose – and conclusion. I provided them. Did you read the book?
In your piece, you do not define what the Declaration “really” is. As I tried to say, it would not have had legal standing in any court or government. It would be profoundly self-destructive to “legalize” revolution. (This is substance.)
The Declaration was a “grito,” a shout of freedom. The Constitution was a framework that the Founders were certain would be ammended, improved, and expanded, depending on the need. It is often vague and imprecise (“high crimes and misdemeanors”)? It fails to name responsible parties and available remedies. It is incredibly short-sighted (militias). And, as high sounding as the language seems, it is incomplete (never mentioning women, for instance). It is a statement of principles more than a guide. Many of the timeless principles enshrined were never fully legally defined, or developed into working law (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).Now, it is highly debatable whether we would be capable of completion of the unfinished work.
The Declaration was certainly for the privileged, as has been said. But, I believe that it was a mockery; because only a fool would proclaim freedom from tyranny and keep slaves, indentured servants, and women and children in virtual servitude. It was a boast that was never delivered upon. A few gained freedom – a very few.
That’s what America is, and was, about: freedom for a few, who jealously hoard it, and servitude for the rest.
Bringing me “into the fold!” Of the Righteous, I suppose. That’s awful chummy, exclusionary, and incredibly egotistical. Do the owners really appreciate your claim of superiority, and that they are included? Doesn’t sound like them.
That is good writing. Stick to that and we have something to talk about.
I am not insulting you. I am challenging you and will continue to do so.
Several of the question you ask and points you raise I have already responded to.
However what follows is interesting….which of these do you want me to respond to first?
As to your last point … the “fold” is as described by Kalima and AdLib….a place where dialogue is encouraged and respect is expected. You are welcome to join in.
Brilliantly done Murph. Although we still struggle to live up to our creed as put forth in The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution, until January 2017 we have made steady progress in our efforts to do so. Until 1964 our government sanctioned separate by equal, which in essence means our government supported segregation, racism and racial inequality. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not and have not changed the hearts and minds of a large segment of European Americans, the majority of Americans embrace and indeed celebrate diversity and equality. Trump and his supporters promote division and liberty and justice for SOME. THAT is NOT what the USA stands for. We are better than Trump and his supporters.
You put this into a very sharp context….until ‘1/17″ steady progress (not that there were not moments when backsliding took place, but as a whole…yes). Since then we have seen widespread regression at the federal, state, and local levels in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government which has sought to turn back the clock in matters related to core American values. And its Drum Major is Donald Trump. Yep!