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 bonds 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.
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 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.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ~Was that true, do you think? An absolute tyranny? Really? Part of the rewriting of history is to make grievances larger. We could have had the US as a dominion under the British crown; Mexico under the emperor Maximilian; Brazil part of the Portuguese empire with the imperial court at Rio de Janeiro (which is where it was, in the end). Would have been a kinder, gentler America. No?
The accusations against the King, in retrospect, are exaggerated and overheated. The revolutionaries wanted Britain to fight the colonies’ wars without the colonies paying for them, the right to unlimited smuggling, and freedom to take whatever measures they liked against the Indians. Not terribly edifying. The principle of representation is doubtless important, but one can hardly say Canada, Australia, or New Zealand lack for that; the colonies would have developed in a similar direction.
What can “all men are created equal” mean? How can this be anything other than idealistic nonsense? And we have an inalienable right to pursue happiness? This is so silly that it defies analysis. LM
The repeated injuries were not “absolute Tyrrany”. That is not what the text says. It says the [i]direct object[/i] of the repeated injuries was [i]the establishment[/i] of absolute Tyrrany. It goes to intent, and who can really say otherwise? Look at the way analyses of intent are thrown around nowadays in matters both civil and religious. Are things really any different?
Likewise I assume Larry Morse is either being ironic, which doesn’t work well on the internet, or is just trolling. He really can summon up no concept of his own, no matter how unconventional, that would render “all men are created equal” meaningful and plausibly true? Give me a break. And an inalienable right to pursue happiness? That also is suspect? So it turns out that actually we have a [i]duty[/i] to give up [i]hope[/i]?? What cr*p. How bizarre it is to live in a time when attitude is spread so thick that cynicism itself can actually launch into fantasy.
You are all kidding, #1-3, right?
#2, I particularly appreciate that in the video clip of a dramatic presentation of the Declaration that Baby Blue has posted, this item:
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
is read by a Native American.
We know from family historical records the details of the murders by Shawnee Indians of two of my Xg-grandfathers, one a German Reformed Christian, the other a 4th generation American whose Anglican antecedent settled in Malden MA in 1650 from Chichester. These took place in different parts of the Pennsylvania frontier in the French & Indian War (1750s) and one attack was followed by kidnap of the German’s 12-year-old son, my forebear, to be raised as a tribal member. He escaped 12 years later and eventually re-entered American, Christian society, married and procreated (luckily for me).
The other victim, from Anglican background, already had 8 sons and at the Revolution 5 of them defected to Canada where they made land claims and have many descendants today. The remaining 3 fought for the USA and their very numerous descendants slowly spread throughout the new, growing nation.
We know that the Declaration presented facts and not, as you intimate, exaggerations.
On the contrary, #4, I’m dead serious. I asked for a comprehensible meaning of “all men are created equal” when the most obvious observation is that all men are not created equal. The document doesn’t say “…equal before the law..” or any such qualification. It is declared as an absolute, and it has no objective referent of any sort.
I cannot define the problem because the phrase is empty of meaning. It is TEC speak, in fact, as is most of the introduction; that is, it is an agenda declared as absolutely true because, so declared, none may debate what is INTUITIVELY true. This is the language of affect again. And like all TECspeak, it affirms without distinction: If it is not specifically excluded, it is included. Since nothing is excluded, “that among these…” everything is included. We have had this non-speech about our ankle for years, like bindweed, and, fortunately for the US, the Constitution has overridden the non-sense contained in the preamble.
Consider a God-given inalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. AS a little test, where in the Bible is the pursuit of happiness declared to be a gift from God. Indeed, we are clear from what we see that even the promise of heaven is not an inalienable right. We are free to cut our own throats if we choose in the matter of paradise. And an inalienable right; so it is genetic. Please?
the rest of the declaration is concerned with the justification realities in a world headed toward war. All very sensible, these rationalizations. Bur “the separate and equal station that the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” Entitle them? The Laws of Nature? Separate and equal? This is liberal smoke and mirrors. I challenge you to find a Law of Nature referent that entitles anyone or anything to a separate but equal station.
Thank Heaven that the Constitution is not so fatuous. LM
I suggest that we have to do a little exegesus here because the 21 Century understanding of the words used in the Declaration of Independence have changed.
If happiness means “emotional fullment” then of course Larry is right, but I suggest that “happiness” had a different meaning to Jefferson. To be happy one had to have the right to acquire propery and/or the right to freely choose one’s vocation. Thus in context the phrase “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” makes perfect sense. One has a right to own property and to work. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
I would also suggest that the Colonials saw themselves being stripped of their rights as Englishmen. They would rightly have considered this as tyranny.
Larry, the preamble is of critical importance. What is the source of right? If from government then they are not “rights”, but privileges and what government gives can be taken away. The preamble sets out the principle that rights are conferred by a power higher than government. That government itself derives its power from the governed. Thus government is limited and constrained from enfringing on pre-existing rights that it did not give to the people. This was completely opposite European political thought then and now.
This was cutting edge political thought of the time and drew on John Locke.
There are serious problems with the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. First, in our age it has become reduced too often to the pursuit of pleasure, which can become corrupting. Second, we can reflect that true happiness links us to others. It is, in fact, often a family value. Parents are happy if their children are happy; spouses are happy if their husband/wife is happy. In this sense happiness should take us out of ourselves into the building of family and community. But in highly individualistic societies this understanding is often lost in the heedless pursuit of what each person wants for themselves. Finally, can you pursue happiness? To understand this question, consider the analogous issues of pursuing fulfilment. All of us want to be fulfilled. Yet we realise as we grow older and hopefully a little wiser that fulfilment depends on other things: vocation, relationships, career, involvement in the community and above all for us as Christians, faith in Christ. You cannot pursue fulfilment directly, but through giving as generously of yourself as you can, you will be rewarded. The same is true of happiness, I suspect.
# 9, Michael, Locke is a rather blunt instrument. He also wrote on property that just as any of the income from the work of his horse belonged to him (think farm horse here) so the income from the work of his servant belonged to him, as an inalienable right. Then think about how this played out in a slavery society.
Terry, true. But I submit that, for the times, it was heady stuff. But if you all want to apologize to Crown and re-establish 18th Century monarchy go ahead.
Michael, I have no desire to see crown and church re-established in the US. On the contrary I would prefer separation of church and state here in the UK. My point was a more general one, namely that in all our national histories there are myths in the technical sense of inspiring stories in which truth and exaggeration are intertwined. Growth involves some kind of honest assessment of these, in so far as we can. On a more light-hearted note, each year when I pray my property taxes in the US I murmur to myself, ‘No taxation without representation.’
Oops. I pay my property taxes, I do not pray them.
#5 The extremely complicated relations between Indians and settlers cannot be simply summarized. Both French and British co-opted Indians as allies and surrogates (that’s when scalping was invented, so the French could pay out reward money for slain enemies on clear evidence). But the idea that the British crown was encouraging Indians to kill British settlers is simply ludicrous. Rather, the British government disapproved of wars of extreme violence (like King Philip’s War) and programs of extermination that were, understandably, quite popular among the settlers. Indians and blacks were consequently far more likely to be Loyalists, perhaps tipping the Tories to a majority of the total population of the colonies. About half of the white settlers were Tories, and probably a majority of those of English descent. One of my own forebears fought in the Loyalist forces; other ancestors went to settle in South Africa in the Albany district–named after Albany, NY, by a dispossessed Tory who had lost his property in that area.
37: What is the source of a “right?” Did God give them to us – thereby making then inalienable. And did He say that these gifts are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness AMONG OTHERS? This final phrase means there are no limits to the rights we may claim and which are God’s gifts. And so we have a right to a job, a right to food, a right to have homosexual bishops, sin or no sin. Br. Michael, this whole phrase is an absurdity because, by including all, it includes nothing, if you see what I mean. And I will be glad to read the source that says God has given us the right to own property and choose our own job, but does NOT give us the right to pursue happiness when happiness means pleasure.
The preamble, when it speaks in rootless abstractions, is Obama-speech – emotional cheerleading, because men respond to such encouragement. And so they do. I do not fault it in a proper place – where one needs cheerleaders – but as a preface to a declaration of war and a Constitution, both of which speak of hard realities, it is binding oneself to the utterly indeterminate. Here is a simple fact:sound law cannot be made from dreams and wishes, unless the Supremes are judges for the cheerleading contest.
Tell me if you can, Br. Michale, what does, “all men are created equal” actually mean? I shall read this clarification with pleasure. Larry
TCM showed the movie “1776” last night. I think many of the questions raised can be answered either by simply watching that movie (rent or buy) or reading David McCullough’s wonderful book by the same name (the annotated deluxe edition especially so):
[blockquote]Essentially a tale of the Continental Army and its commander, “1776” is a somewhat narrow account of that pivotal year in American history. The author worked with more than seventy diaries and several thousand letters to piece together his historical tale, and chooses to let many of the participants speak for themselves through the words they left behind. The writing is both engaging and entertaining, and the characters bring the war to life in a way that most history books cannot.
David McCullough’s story is wonderfully, painfully human; as you read you can’t help but be drawn in to the suffering, bravery, desertion, determination, disasters and triumphs of General George Washington and his ragtag army. [/blockquote]
McCullough is perhaps one of the best historians around today.
If you don’t want to buy the book, check your library. I know our library had one on the shelf and three copies in the donation room!
Jim Elliott <><
PS,
I’m currently reading David McCullough’s book on ‘John Adams’ right now. While it’s kind of thick and bogged down with ‘facts’ it’s also a great historical background on one of the movers of the move for Independence.
JE <><
Certainly, all men are created equal before God. All are are of equal value and all deserve equal treatment regardless of class. An aristocrat and commoner were equally subject to the law. It’s an ideal not reality. And secondly rights better come from a higher source than government, because what government gives it can take away. It’s the underlying theory of the Constitution. It underpins the whole theory of limited government. Read the Bill of Rights and try the 9th and 10th Amendments for example.
“The extremely complicated relations between Indians and settlers cannot be simply summarized.” Nice, #13, responding to imply that my forebears’ fates at the hands of savages due to negligence or worse of the crown may be thus trivialized – and next insinuating that my ancestor may have been scalped because he was part of some “program of extermination that were, understandably, quite popular among the settlers”. The many facts (FACTS) about the situation that we have, in written records including his children’s, suggest otherwise.
It is well-known to thousands that their American colonial forebears of varyingly Ulster Scots, Quaker, German or dissenting English descent were encouraged for more than 150 years to settle the frontier so they would provide a (disposable) human buffer between the landed gentry, such as your Albany-based forebear, and the threatening violence of the unsettled west. Quakers were particularly encouraged since it was hoped their pacifism would convert or neutralize Indians. Some of the gentry, such as George Washington, in carrying out their campaigns on behalf of king’s agents, discerned the injustice of this situation and were inspired to address it. (It’s probably less well-known that even into the early 1800s, Indian attacks on settlers for example at the west edge of the Shenandoah Valley were frequent and horrific – the weekly newspaper published by a third ancestor of mine seemed to report at least one in every issue for years.)
The simple fact is that when the largely non-gentry, disadvantaged colonials’ Army fought and won the Revolution, land-seeking scions of English families then had to look to other territory under royal control for their opportunities, for better or worse. This worked even for such as the 5 Loyalist brothers of my other, 4th generation colonial, ancestor, as well as their 2 sisters. I was surprised on reading their history at their success in appealing to Canada for land (‘award for damages’, in effect), and even more that they thrived there, one reputedly building the first mill in Toronto. The weather would have been a bit worse to contend with, much worse than South Africa’s I imagine.
But it doesn’t say:”All men are created equal before God.” If t hat is what writers meant, they would have said so. You interpolation fundamentally alters the text and without justification. It does say that God has given us inalienable rights, which are…” And the source for this extraordinary declaration are to be found where? T his is, as I have noted elsewhere, the “Holy Ghost” declaration that TEC has used to rationalize its taradiddle, is it not? What the Declaration does is grant to its believers an unassailable position, intuitively true. The only element lacking is the declaration that this a New Thing caused by the Holy Ghost. The vacuity of the language of affect commonly goes unchallenged because there are no rational grounds to make such a challenge.
The argument that rights had better come from a higher authority than government is equally unusable. But look again: Can government change the Declaration of Independence? Why, of course. And where is your argument then? And if government declares that inalienable rights are nonsense, what then? Who will you appeal to to prove the government false? God has managed to rule without the Declaration for some time.LM
Larry, I think we are talking past each other. The Declaration is not concerned with things of God but of man. It is seeking to justify rebellion against England. It is trying to set out, in very brief summary, a philosophy of how secular government can be organized. It is drawing on Hobbs and Locke and it must be set against the political theory of the divine right of Kings to rule.
I send you to the following links: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_style.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html
Part of the problem is that we all have assumptions and pre-suppositions. That there are inherent rights and self-evident truths was a given in Thomas Jefferson’s circle in the 18th centruy. They were true because everyone knew they were true. We do the same thing today, just about other things.
Jefferson was a deist. There was a God, just not a terrible active God. But that God was the source of rights, which government, created by man, had no authority to transgress. It might have the power and ability, but not the legitimacy or authority.
Jefferson wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights which sets out in more detail what he was trying to summarize in the Declaration:
[blockquote] A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .
Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.
Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.[/blockquote]
I will add that the US Constitution is in accord with this philosophy of government. The constitution does not grant rights!!! The federal government is a creature of the people and the states. It only can exercise limited powers and cannot encroach on rights that pre-exist the constitution.
I would argue that the current state of federal powers and the fact that in practice it exercises general “police powers” (legal term of art) shows just how far from the founders ideals we have fallen. The federal government was deliberately designed not to work to well. Power is deliberately fragmented. We want government to fight government. We want the executive to tell the courts to take a hike. We want the President to fight Congress. It’s called checks and balances and it is the brutal theory that if government is fighting with itself it can’t beat up on the people.
We dismantle this inefficiency at out peril. As we have in fact done. We want efficient government. We want government to do things for us. We want government to examine every part of our lives to catch the bad guys and in so doing we undue and destroy the very foundations of our constitution and theory of government. Government works for us and protects our rights, not the other way around.
I don’t really think Jefferson was a Diest, more of a Unitarian. At one point he was considering joining a Unitarian congregation, but for whatever reason decided against it.
There are many websites and books that discuss this in detail.
Of all the “founders” perhaps Franklin was the closest to a diest, even though he is credited for more quotations invoking and involving God than any other Founder. My favorite:
“Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
22, the point is not whether Jefferson was a diest or a unitarian. The point was that “rights” came from a transcendent source higher than government.
All men are created equal IN being endowed by their Creator with . . . . That is how they are equal. They have all been endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and property.