"We Hold These Truths To Be Self-evident"

[Winstonm]

On this July 4th, it may be wise to reflect again on the meaning of the "great experiment" in self rule that became the U.S.A.

 

From the LA Times editorial pages:

 

This Fourth of July, celebrate by rereading the Declaration of Independence, created by more or less the same crowd who brought us the Constitution, 11 years and one war later. Remember it? “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.”

 

Wild stuff! To the founders, “all men” have “unalienable rights” — not just U.S. citizens in the continental United States. (If the founding fathers were around today, Rush Limbaugh and Rudy Giuliani would pillory them as limp-wristed, latte-drinking, soft-on-terror liberals.)

 

It was treasonous stuff too. When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, there were no U.S. citizens: Instead, there were about 2.5 million scrappy Colonists who legally owed allegiance to the king of England, George III. But they went to war — over the little matter of freedom, law and unalienable, God-given rights.

 

Among their grievances against King George, the rebellious Colonists complained that he ignored the will of their representative bodies, refused “his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers” and “affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” The Colonists also objected to the denial of “the benefit of trial by jury” and the king’s practice of avoiding the inconveniences of due process by transporting prisoners “beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” (George III would have loved Guantanamo.)

 

The founders had a word for governments that respected rights only arbitrarily and selectively: tyranny. The signers of the declaration took rights seriously. They wrote, “For the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” That wasn’t mere rhetoric. Technically, the signers were all traitors, liable to be executed for treason. And they accepted that standing up for rights means taking some real risks.

 

Of the 56 signers of the declaration, about a third fought in the Revolutionary War, and five were captured and severely mistreated by the British. Several later died. Many lost children in the war, and about a third had their homes damaged or destroyed by the British. About 25,000 Colonists died in the war, about 8,000 in combat, the rest of disease — including an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 who died as a result of mistreatment while prisoners of the British. Extrapolating to modern population figures, that’s like losing nearly 300,000 Americans in a war.

 

The Constitution is no “suicide pact,” but the people who founded this nation risked war, prison and death for the sake of unalienable human rights. Their values guided us through good times and bad, through the Civil War, two world wars and the Cold War. But today, some Americans seem happy to discard those same precious values in the name of “security.”

 

Sometimes I wonder: If the founders could have foreseen this, would they have bothered to fight the Revolutionary War?

[luke warm]

it's my understanding that the declaration was the document used to explain why the colonists were breaking from england... the constitution was the document written that showed how the citizens of the new country should understand their roles and that of the gov't they created

 

i agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness knows no boundaries, and that the declaration of independence could be used by any oppressed people to separate themselves from their oppressors.. but i think that noone but america and its citizens are bound by the constitution (no other country, no citizens of another country - except so far as obedience to our laws is concerned while a non-citizen is here)... if they are the only ones so bound, that means to me that they are the only ones it is addressed to... maybe my understanding is wrong, though

[Winstonm]

it's my understanding that the declaration was the document used to explain why the colonists were breaking from england... the constitution was the document written that showed how the citizens of the new country should understand their roles and that of the gov't they created

 

I think of it as the declaration being the highest law, universal law, and the constitution simply spells out under what specific conditions the federal government can usurp those powers.

[luke warm]

i think of the declaration as a document severing the colonists from english rule, and laying down the reasons for this severing... i think of the constitution as the document of law to which american citizens, and their gov't, are answerable

[TimG]

It was treasonous stuff too. When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, there were no U.S. citizens: Instead, there were about 2.5 million scrappy Colonists who legally owed allegiance to the king of England, George III. But they went to war — over the little matter of freedom, law and unalienable, God-given rights.

Does that 2.5 million include the approximately 500,000 slaves in the Colonies?

 

all men are created equal

This really did mean "men", not "all humans"; and didn't really mean "all", but rather certain white men.

[barmar]

It was treasonous stuff too. When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, there were no U.S. citizens: Instead, there were about 2.5 million scrappy Colonists who legally owed allegiance to the king of England, George III. But they went to war — over the little matter of freedom, law and unalienable, God-given rights.

Does that 2.5 million include the approximately 500,000 slaves in the Colonies?

 

all men are created equal

This really did mean "men", not "all humans"; and didn't really mean "all", but rather certain white men.

Quite a few of them were against slavery, I believe, and wanted to include language that would reflect this (like "all people" rather than "all men"). But they knew that representatives of the southern colonies, who depended so heavily on slave labor (in much the same way that parts of modern America depend on illegal immigrants), wouldn't sign such a document. As they needed solidarity, they compromised on this in the Declaration and the original Constitution.

 

Watch the HBO miniseries on John Adams, it portrays the discussions that went on over this.

 

In any case, things like this have to be understood in their historical context. Any form of democracy was a radical idea in the 18th century. How much overturning of established policy could you expect them to achieve at one time? So don't be so hard on them for not overturning slavery at the same time.

[Al_U_Card]

Where does the Bill of Rights fit into this?

[kenberg]

On this July 4th, it may be wise to reflect again on the meaning of the "great experiment" in self rule that became the U.S.A.

 

From the LA Times editorial pages:

 

Of the 56 signers of the declaration, about a third fought in the Revolutionary War, and five were captured and severely mistreated by the British. Several later died. 

Who are the ones still living?

[luke warm]

Where does the Bill of Rights fit into this?

the first 10 amendments to the constitution

[kenberg]

I will always see the question as "How were they able to accomplish so much?". I don't favor blanket admiration, in fact I feel the detracts from what was done. Some flawed men somehow put together a country based on self-government and made it work.

 

We must, I believe, try to appreciate the many ways in which it was and is imperfect, and the many ways in which it could have and still might fail. I believe this makes what was accomplished more, not less, remarkable.

 

Very few truths, very few important ideas, are self-evident. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton all thought deeply and often disagreed intensely. Self-evident truth is a myth.

 

Happy Fourth

Ken

[Al_U_Card]

Not to denigrate any other countries or their nationals but I really do appreciate the US as the exemplar of what the creative nature of man can produce. If I treat it harshly it is only out of revulsion for the corruption of it's ideals.

[luke warm]

If I treat it harshly it is only out of revulsion for the corruption of it's ideals.

a sentiment i can embrace

[barmar]

Ideals are easy to come up with, but actually living up to them is difficult. It's so much easier to give in to our baser natures. Even small communities of dedicated individuals have rarely succeeded in forming lasting societies based on pure motives.

 

As Ken and Al suggested, this makes the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers all the more remarkable. Our country and government may not be the best embodiment of a democratic replublic, but the fact that it has lasted over 200 years without totally degrading says something important about the foundation they laid.

[jtfanclub]

I think of it as the declaration being the highest law, universal law, and the constitution simply spells out under what specific conditions the federal government can usurp those powers.

The Declaration was made by 56 men who were not elected by anyone, and the Declaration wasn't ratified by anybody. I see it as no different than anything else any of our Founding Fathers wrote, in terms of law.

[vuroth]

Of the 56 signers of the declaration, about a third fought in the Revolutionary War, and five were captured and severely mistreated by the British. Several later died.

Actually, I suspect that they all died. Either that, or the Americans are witholding a founain of youth from the world.

 

V