Sometimes, I think we need to remind ourselves why the United States of America came to be. When was the last time anyone really read the Declaration of Independence and pondered just what it was that our forefathers were fighting for? Let's take a stroll down Memory Lane...
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
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.
Today's conservative would have you believe that our forefathers maintained that the Laws of Nature they refer to are decidedly Judeo-Christian in nature. There's the first lie that we've been subjected to. The Laws of Nature to our forefathers was a concept that was much simpler: it meant that all of mankind was entitled to freedom and free will.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - dbw
Thank you. This is insightful and intelligent.
2 - Bennett
Excellent! This is a must read post!
Thanks, Silas.
3 - alethinos59
Excellent effort Silas!
Alethinos
4 - Silas Kain
I must admit that I am ashamed of the fact that I even forgot about this document. Thanks to Dave Nalle's article about an alternative to the Pledge of Allegiance, I went back and read the Declaration for the first time in years. It made me appreciate all the more why I am an American. So thanks, Dave, for reminding me how important it is to remember our country's history.
5 - Will Kessel
Wow. Nice work.
Kinda' puts everything in perspective, doesn't it?
6 - Les Slater
This post has a major weakness.
“We aren't Italo-Americans, Black Americans or Asian Americans. We are Americans”
This is fundamentally not true. There is no ONE America. This is a class divided America and peoples on opposite ends of the economic spectrum have diametrically opposing interests.
The Declaration of Independence was first and foremost a declaration against a foreign power. It wasn’t just that they were foreign, but a power whose economic interests were dramatically at odds with the people in its colonies.
In America today, we are saddled with a government that represents the political and economic interest of an economic class whose interests are in conflict with the majority of its population.
In that sense our cities are occupied by a foreign power. They station armed men whose primary role is to protect the interest of that foreign power.
It is neither our government nor our America.
From that perspective the Declaration of Independence rings quite true today.
7 - Justin Berry
This is a great post if you leave out all of the brown words and let the "living document" speak for itself. As we should be able to create our own self serving "spin".
8 - Bennett
I totally disagree, Justin.
>"This is a great post if you leave out all of the brown words and let the "living document" speak for itself."<
How would that work? Silas finds an online copy of the Declaration and simply posts it here? "Please read this, it's a good read."
That would not reach out to more than a handful of folks, as far too many of *us* are too lazy to simply read the document for the sake of enlightenment. To have Silas give his "take" on the different sections was stimulating and interesting.
>"As we should be able to create our own self serving "spin"."<
"Should" being a key word here. And perhaps we are capable, but without this effort, right here by Silas, would we take the time?
"Self serving" meaning the serving of the tax paying citizens of the United States, by opening the document up for consideration and debate in a fresh way.
I think it was a great idea, and particularly well done.
You, Justin, would rather we don't talk about this stuff? Or perhaps you have a better idea?
I'm looking forward to reading YOUR post on where we are as a country, from a historic perspective...
9 - WTF
Silas, great read.
the terminoloy Judeo-Christian is only about 75 to 100 years old. Research it. To the radical right Christian, the term has no meaning. For obvious reasons.
10 - WTF
The Law by Bastiate, some Paine, Lysander Spooner are also germaine reading. Well worth the time.
Getting into the mind of the framers or founders is quite an undertaking from a 21st century perspective. But the perspective of the 18th century (CE/AD) should be seriously considered when translating the document. Yes I said translating the document.
Again, a great post. Thanks
11 - Silas Kain
Thanks for the comments pro and con. I have to thank Dave Nalle once again because it was his article that inspired me.
When I read articles like this I can understand why parents like Dave Nalle are such advocates of home schooling. Our public education system is a mess. Every generation that comes out of the system seems to be less informed than the last in matters of history and civic responsibility.I'd love to hear other takes on the Declaration and what exactly it means to them. I also plan on asking my kids and my nieces and nephews what they know about it. Somehow with the advances in technology our roots got left by the wayside. I think it's important that our youth learns about what precipitated the American Revolution and its aftermath. History teaches important lessons that in my view are not wasted. There's an interesting article by Sheldon M. Stern for the JFK Library that sums it up:
12 - troll
Every time I read The Declaration I am struck by and made proud of America's long tradition of bitching
and the bitching embedded within the bitching worked for me
troll
13 - Silas Kain
I bitch, therefore I am
14 - Honey Pie
I am a bitch
15 - Al Barger
Brother Silas, you have a few good points, but they're mixed in with a whole bunch of foolishness. Just one little example: "Good people have lost their livlihoods because they dared speak against this Administration during the aftermath of 9/11. Remember Bill Maher?"
That right there is some NONSENSE. There was what, ONE passing sentence from the press secretary? Bush didn't do a goddam thing to Maher, he did it to himself. He pissed off the CONSUMERS and ABC eventually canned him after a fairly long and successful run.
Beyond that, NO ONE is being thrown in jail for disagreeing with the president. Kanye West says whatever kind of nonsense he wants, without the least fear of legal repercussions. This suppression of dissent just isn't happening.
16 - Dave Nalle
It's a clever concept for an article, Silas, but some of the later sections where you try to create a parallell between the Bush administration and the British government at the time of the revolution are really, really overreaching. I know you try to steer a middle course, but you neglect to mention that the flaws you point out in the current administration aren't theirs specifically, but in most of the examples you cite, they are bipartisan failings which would be as bad or in some cases even worse if the Democrats were in control. Plus, most of those later specific examples are really not nearly as extreme as the equivalent British offenses mentioned in the Declaration. Comparing gerrymandering to not having any representation at all in the British government is a bit ridiculous. You also conveniently gloss over some of the most important points in the Declaration, particularly the fact that the leaders of the revolution believed that it was an obscene violation of basic rights for a government to tax citizens at all.
dave
17 - Dr. Kurt
High crimes and misdemeanors? I think so. Some patriotic citizens are, in fact, speaking out; see impeachbush.org.
18 - Silas Kain
Thanks Al and Dave. When it comes to gerrymandering, Dave, I find that akin to having no representation at all. The trappings of incumbency make it nearly impossible for a good challenger to even make it. There were sections I did gloss over because I felt I was long winded, as usual. It's certainly not my intent to blame the ills of the Nation on this Administration alone, there's plenty of blame to go around starting with myself.
19 - Al Barger
Silas, as a third party activist, you gotta know I'm sensitive about gerrymandering and all the intricate ways in which challengers are carefully locked out. I will say, however, that gerrymandering specifically is NOT done by the US Congress or the federal government. That's a state level issue, whether it's the cheesy Democrats in California or cheesy Republicans in Texas.
20 - Silas Kain
Bottom line, Al, it's cheesey. We need election reform badly in America. We've got a lot of balls sending inspectors to elections in foreign lands when we can't accomplish even-handed, accurate polling of the electorate in our own country. Third parties also need a real voice at the American political banquet table. Like I said before, there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth.
21 - Luke
So the genocide of the indians was englands fault, riiiiiight.
22 - Silas Kain
We're a country built on greed, Luke. The Native American was slaughtered to make way for the white man to stake a claim to the land and become rich with money, property and power. The majority of the wealth accrued by such a small percentage of the population was garnered on the backs of slaves laboring for their masters in servitude; and, on the backs of foreign labororers who escpaed to America in search for a piece of the American dream only to be hustled into ghettos and tent cities to work for the rich.
It's a country of haves and have nots. I think that the last 3 weeks have proven that point. We're always telling our people that we're the richest, most generous country on the planet. Guess again. We're not. As a matter of fact, we're pretty damned cheap compared to other Western developed countries.
23 - John Bil
Our government has long ago stopped obeying the constitution, they only pretend to. Take a look at the commerce clause. The Declaration of Independence really has no actual legal force.
24 - Dave Nalle
>>We're a country built on greed, Luke.<<
Greed is good. Greed is pure. You can always trust and believe in greed. All other motivations are suspect.
>> The Native American was slaughtered to make way for the white man to stake a claim to the land and become rich with money, property and power. The majority of the wealth accrued by such a small percentage of the population was garnered on the backs of slaves laboring for their masters in servitude; and, on the backs of foreign labororers who escpaed to America in search for a piece of the American dream only to be hustled into ghettos and tent cities to work for the rich. <<
Only a small minority of today's rich directly profited from any of those things, Silas. Most large fortunes were made in the last two generations and the largest - the likes of Gates, Dell, Buffet and such - made their enormous wealth entirely on their own in the last half-century, with no slaves, no dead indians, no cheap immigrant labor.
>>It's a country of haves and have nots. I think that the last 3 weeks have proven that point.<<
How? Did the rich somehow benefit from the hurricane? All it proved is that poor people get the worst land because it's cheaper.
>> We're always telling our people that we're the richest, most generous country on the planet. Guess again. We're not. As a matter of fact, we're pretty damned cheap compared to other Western developed countries.<<
As I've pointed out before, Silas, while our government foreign aid is relatively low as a percentage of GNP, it's right at the top in total dollars, and no one can match our private charitable giving. The purpose of our government really isn't to give away money to foreign countries. Their job is to run things here at home, and perhaps with the deficit and the Katrina situation we ought to send even less money overseas.
One thing no one seems to understand about the wealthy or wealthy nations, is that their expenses ALSO goes up as their income does. You have to spend money to make money.
Dave
25 - Eric Berlin
Greed is good. Greed is pure.
Someone's been watching Wall Street on repeat, me thinks, a la Affleck and Diesel et al in Boiler Room...