The Declaration of Independence: Who does it serve?

[quote]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.

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.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

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.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[/quote]

I had a conversation last night and the DOI came up. It got me thinking on the way home: Who is it for? It the DOI for Americans, or is it/was it intended to be an umbrella that rests over ALL the world’s people? Is it a moral statement for ALL, or for all Americans? And can it be used as a tool to “free” citizens in other countries from oppression similar to what the Colonists had laid upon them?

IMO, it is for Americans. It protects OUR rights and does not guarantee the rights of citizens of foreign countries. If not, and it is supposed to serve all people everywhere, no matter where and under what government, then can’t it be used as a way to pry into the affairs of just about anyone, giving the US free reign to invade for the cause of Democracy, bringing Democracy by force, even when there isn’t a threat, and maybe only when a lack of Democracy is the only thing “wrong” with a foreign contry?

I just started thinking about this, and my views are not written in stone, but I think it’s a pretty interesting issue, as if it IS a moral issue, then why are’t we invading a dozen other countries with far worse track records than Iraq?

So, what do you think? Who does the DOI serve?

It serves as a legal document for Americans, and a model to all.
It can be used as a tool to “free” citizens elsewhere, just as Roman and Italian republican constitutions and theories were used as a tool to free Americans.
It does not guarantee the rights of citizens elsewhere, but sets a high bar against which citizens of other countries might measure their own regimes.

As you’re chewing over the issue, you’d get a lot out of John Rawl’s Law of Peoples. You’ll be able to find a good summary online without much trouble. I’d love to know what you think of the arguments made.

True, but did Rome/Italy invade to free the Colonists? What I mean, the US using the DOI as a tool to justify physically “freeing” people from oppressive regimes. Or using it to justify not doing anything as it’s “ours” and not theirs. They want it as a model, fine. But that’s as far as it goes.

I’ll check out John Rawl’s Law of Peoples…it’s been a while.

I believe it is very arrogant of the US to apply the DOI as a model to force democracy on other countries.

Imagine if another democratic country (say, New Zealand as a random example) invaded a middle eastern dictatorship. Sounds stupid doesn’t it?
It seems to me that it’s the US’s size is what determines the importance of their DOI (or more accurately, the perception of importance) to the rest of the world.

Some countries might actually be happy and function OK without a democratic system, so why screw around with that just to force a democracy (isn’t that a contradiction in terms anyway: forced democracy?)

That’s the argument Rawls deals with.

It’s a messy, messy argument. Can you compel someone to be free? You can establish the institutions, and if they take root (post-war Japan) great, if not (Weimar Germany, Iraq) it’s a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, can you look the other way and still look at yourself in the mirror?

The worst periods of Church history (The Inquisition, treatment of New World natives, Crusades, and various pogroms against Jews) are steeped in the doctrine of imperial grace: we Christians are going to bring the light to you benighted heathens, or send your souls to hell trying.

Ditto liberal democracies. Such regimes aren’t more peaceful; they’re more peaceful regarding one another. Liberal democracies fight more, longer, and more vicious wars, but do so against illiberal regimes.

:idunno: It’s an entrenched, delicate issue. I’m undecided myself: cautious realism vs. ambitious idealism. Generally, I think things are improving. I don’t think there’s an ironclad law that such must be the case. I’m very much interested in any thoughts on offer.

and other countries have proven very successfully that there’s no need for democracy in order to achieve wealth.

JDS -
The DoI was designed for the then emerging United States of America.
I’m having a bit of a hard time understanding this notion that it is/should be applied to “all the people of the world.” I really don’t think an instance exists where the US has 'invaded a foreign state for the sole reason of forcibly imposing our form of “Democracy” on that state.
In cases where the US has legally deemed it required to commit to a military action against a foreign state there has always been an issue of much larger context involved.
Has the US widely promoted its form of Representative Republic style of Democracy?
Yes, of course. It beats the dickens out of the alternatives as far as allowing the individual to attain the highest standards of personal achievement.
While some other forms of social governance do have popularity in some specific areas; overall, the Representative Republic form of Democracy wins out as far as personal freedom for the individual. And that is what it was designed to do.
YMMV.

By the way, The Bill of Rights establishes our guaranteed freedoms in the USA.

The “inalienable rights” all humans are endowed with is a natural law concept whose first modern legal/political theorist and direct inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Bill of Rights was the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and the Magna Charta were important antecedents, among many others.

In simplified terms, natural law holds that all human beings by their very nature are endowed with certain essential rights that precede and supersede the laws of any political order or cultural context, so nationality has nothing to do with them.

Grotius’s On the Law of War and Peace and John Locke’s Two Treatises on Civil Government are good sources on the universality of natural rights, which may either be endowed by God or by the very natural order which begat human life.

Modern liberal and leftist philosophies have largely displaced belief in an unchanging, universal natural order with belief in “human rights” which are at least in part relative to a particular political and cultural context.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is a piece of political propaganda (in essence a glorified press release) that was drafted to state the reasons for the colonies to declare their independence.

It is a good lesson for the Taiwan pro-independence dingbats, in particular the nitwits arguing about how old pieces of paper give or do not give Taiwan some status or another.

The sovereignty and independence of the colonies did not derive from the Declaration of Independence or any other piece of paper. Nor was it determined by resort to international law (yes, they had international law in the 1700s, at least in the west.).

The independence of the United States came when the first redcoat ate a fucking bullet at Bunker Hill (or Breeds Hill, I forget which); that is “The Shot Heard Round the World”. And real independance was not secured till after the end of the War of 1812 when the British finally gave up the idea of holding on to the colonies.

As to the actual question, who does it serve, it served the forces working in the colonies in the mid 1770s to justify to themselves and others the use of arms against British authority. “The others” being colonist who did not see the need or justification for taking up arms against the British Crown as well as European groups who might lend their support to the American cause.

Let me be quick to add, I love with all my heart and soul the US Declaration of Independence. I view it as on par with the King James Bible as the two most beautiful piece of english writing around. But be that as it may, it is simply a piece of propaganda. As to whether the King James Bible is also propaganda…well, it is the Sabbath so I do not want to sin against the Good Word.

Take care,
Brian

Truant wrote:

[quote]I believe it is very arrogant of the US to apply the DOI as a model to force democracy on other countries.
[/quote]

TCowboy wrote:[quote]
I’m having a bit of a hard time understanding this notion that it is/should be applied to “all the people of the world.” I really don’t think an instance exists where the US has 'invaded a foreign state for the sole reason of forcibly imposing our form of “Democracy” on that state. [/quote]

I am with TC here. The US didn’t invade anyone afaik to whip Democracy on them; secure energy resources? OK, I’ll buy that; prevent a dangerous bigmouth from getting too powerful? I buy that too.

Yet, I agree with Truant, to apply the DOI forcefully to other countries? I don’t think so. To apply it evenly and forcefully when necessary within US borders, absolutely.

spook wrote:
[quote]
In simplified terms, natural law holds that all human beings by their very nature are endowed with certain essential rights that precede and supersede the laws of any political order or cultural context, so nationality has nothing to do with them. [/quote]

Would Darwin agree with these natural laws? These sound like spiritual laws to me.

[quote=“brainlkennedy”]The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is a piece of political propaganda (in essence a glorified press release) that was drafted to state the reasons for the colonies to declare their independence. [/quote]Yes. I stand corrected.

Would Darwin agree with these natural laws? These sound like spiritual laws to me.[/quote]

It’s a different kind of natural law, but there is–quite seriously–good experimental evidence that we share certain social norms–equality and consistency requirements–with our evolutionary closest cousins. Those norms may have a basis in genetics.

I find it a bit silly that the United States still celebrates a holiday called “Independence Day.” Yes, let’s celebrate independence from those tyranical, colonial woman raping, barbaric, pasty white skinned British, who just so happen to now be our closest allies and whose blood has been spilled right along with American blood on many battlefields in the past century. There probably aren’t any Brits who see our annual celebration as a bit silly, but why can’t we just call it National Day?

The natural (spiritual) law manifesto of the DOI is right there in its preamble in both the form that Locke postulated (derived from reason) and Aquinas and Grotius had postulated (derived from God).

"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.

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. . . . "

The natural (spiritual) law manifesto of the DOI is right there in its preamble in both the form that Locke postulated (derived from reason) and Aquinas and Grotius had postulated (derived from God).

"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.

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. . . . "[/quote]

Well, again, those words were crafted by men. Are they a fair interpretation of “Nature’s Laws for mankind?”

Because I tell ya what, if they are Laws, the Taiwanese police are enforcing them. :laughing:

US History begins with the Colonists separation from the UK. It is a BIG part of our early education. We have King George effigy day and pin the lip on the bobby, all sorts of fun games. :wink:

Seriously, US history begins with the breakup of the new and old words. That we celebrate the separation a mere 200 years later means it’s still fresh in the National Conscience.

The UK doesn’t celebrate Magna Carta Day anymore afaik, but they may have marked it somehow in the long forgotten past. Maybe it means less because they take it for granted now.

200 years in national conscience is not long.

That and ID4 sounds cool, and ND4 sounds stupid. :wink:

The natural (spiritual) law manifesto of the DOI is right there in its preamble in both the form that Locke postulated (derived from reason) and Aquinas and Grotius had postulated (derived from God).

"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.

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. . . . "[/quote]

Well, again, those words were crafted by men. Are they a fair interpretation of “Nature’s Laws for mankind?”

Because I tell ya what, if they are Laws, the Taiwanese police are enforcing them. :laughing:[/quote]

Your central question is who does the principles of the DOI apply to. I think it’s self-evident that when Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights” that he wasn’t just talking about British subjects living in the American colonies.

The definition of natural law which Thomas Jefferson primarily drew on in fact explicitly states it’s independent of all political systems, societies or nation-states:

"Natural law (Latin jus naturale) is law that exists independently of the positive law of a given political order, society or nation-state. It is simultaneously a legal philosophy or perspective, and a genre of law - depending on the jurisdiction in which the term is used. The theory of natural law was introduced by Aristotle before being further developed within a Christian context by St Thomas Aquinas.

As a genre, natural law is the law of nature—that is, the principle that some things are as they are, because that is how they are. This use is especially valid in Scotland, where “natural law” operates as a genre of law parallel to both civil and criminal law, and its discussion is not limited to human beings.

As a philosophical perspective, especially in the English and American legal traditions, the principles of natural law are expressed, obliquely or openly, in such documents as Magna Carta and the United States Declaration of Independence, when rights are discussed, explicitly or implicitly, as being inherent. For example, the expression “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” expresses such a right that is discussed as being inherent. The words that immediately precede that expression: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, …” express a natural law philosophy. . . . "

Is “independence” different from “democracy”? Is the point that “the people” declared independence of their monarch, becoming their own masters as the Supreme Being intended? Or is the point that America (or the part of it between Canada and Mexico) is no longer administratively linked with Britain?

Doesn’t “democracy” require a coherent “demos”? If “my people” are going to be regularly outvoted, then I’m not going to be satisfied with democracy (though I might support an absolute monarch). I’m going to want independence.

That’s absolutely true. The DoI is “only” a piece of propaganda, but it’s perhaps the most influential piece of propaganda ever in the world’s history. No DoI → no French Revolution, no Western liberal democracy.

My American history teacher in high school has a copy of the DoI on the wall as well as a copy of the 14th Amendment, which further codified the principles set forth in the DoI and which he firmly believed was the most important amendment of them all.

A whole new ballgame?

Spook wrote:

How about some Independence from this as well? Things are as they are, but so what? We stack the deck in our favor medically with lifesaving drugs; we stack education in our favor by teaching what best suits the economy (or we hope to do so).

Convincing ourselves that our thoughts and actions do actually outlive our natural bodies is pretty easy. Creating laws that reflect that “natural law” can be manipulated to suit our needs? Hmmm GM food anyone? Clone a cow? How about grow a new set of eyes? Nation build?

What we read as Natural Law may just be what Jefferson thought as the foundation of 18th Century thought. Do we still believe that now? Is “invasive liberal Democracy” a method that reflects Jefferson’s belief that “Ths is the way it should be all over the world for all people, regardless of their history, religion and poltical realities?” We know much more about the world than Jefferson ever did.

If all people, all citizens have this innate right to self determination, do they first need to be living in a democratic State for it to succeed, or can they do the best they can do, given their own situation, AND acheive the Big Three, without a liberal democratic political system? If Yes, then what exactly do they need to be liberated from, to ensure a life of liberty and a side dish of pursuit of happiness? If No, then force feeding LD is a blunt economic tool to promote business.

The only true freedom any of us has, the one can never be taken away, is the freedom of response to a given situation, and that works in the USA and in Iran, in the boardroom and in a Nazi death camp, in exactly the same way.

Doesn’t it?

The DOI, for me, gave us much more to think about than simply indepence from England; it created free ranging thought for all people…in the USA. It freed the mind. It was Pandora’s Box all over again.

Is it right? Is it a Right for all people everywhere to have this freedom of mind? We always say, “Why not?” but what happens if we say “Why should they?” Natural Law says there will be losers. GM law says, “Maybe, maybe not.”

What an interesting time we occupy. :rainbow:

Yes.

It was in fact Breed’s Hill. I think the Americans set up on Breed’s Hill by mistake during the darkness of night. Had the Americans had more ammunition, things could have been really ugly for the British.

Actually, the “shot heard 'round the world” was fired at Lexington.

Yes.

Sorry to be pedantic, but, there might be kids reading this! :wink: