Micah Tillman

Introduction

^{[ Intro | Declaration | Conclusion ]}

Given the fireworks I heard going off outside my apartment last night, it would seem to have been the 4th of July.

And, it would seem, the 4th was something worth celebrating (by exploding pretty things in the air that everyone can see and hear for miles around).

(We party in the sky, here in America, and make it impossible for you not to notice. :-)

Which makes me ask, “Is the 4th worthy of this kind of celebration?”

____

I remember sitting in on an “alternate chapel” at Messiah College when I was there as an undergrad.  (You had to attend a certain number of chapels each semester, some of which were held in the central gymnasium, and others of which [called "alternate chapels"] were held around campus in various locations.)

The speaker on this occasion suggested that Canada did just fine without having to fight a war.  Why did “we” have to go and start a war by obnoxiously declaring independence?

“They told the world why in the Declaration of Independence, you b@$#@&%!” I wanted to graciously suggest.  “They wrote this whole long thing, with all the reasons right there in it.  You can read, right?”

(“And, while we’re on the subject, if you love Canada so much, why don’t you marry it?”)

(But I didn’t say any of those things.  I just fumed and felt hurt.)

____

So, is the 4th something worthy of celebrating as my neighbors were doing last night?

Let’s take a look at the Declaration, and find out. (Feel free to skip right to the conclusion, though.)

____

The Declaration of Independence

^{[ Intro | Declaration | Conclusion ]}

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

[ Notice that "united" isn't capitalized.  It's a description, not a name.  "The united States" wasn't a country at this point.  There were just thirteen separate states (read, "countries"), who happened to be acting in a united way. ]

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.

[ Notice that the declaration is Jefferson & Co.s' attempt to show respect for the people of the world.  They owe the world an explanation, an "apology" (in the original sense of the word).

Notice how modernist and rationalist this is.  Everyone deserves to have the Americans defend their actions to them.  The world is not divided into Greeks and Barbarians, or Civilized and Uncivilized.  Rather, the world consists simply of people -- rational people with the right to be given reasons for what the Americans are doing.

Notice also that this is not a declaration of war.  It's an explanation for why a group of people who once belonged to one country have decided that something about the Nature of Things demands that they begin to act as belonging to their own new countries (there would have been thirteen). ]

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.

[ Jefferson & Co. begin to explain themselves by making their first principles explicit.  And they assume that everyone else in the world can see that these first principles are true.  In other words, they assume that everyone else in the world is rational, and can access the fundamental truths about the world and human beings.

Notice that the primary truth they claim is self-evident -- that all men are created equal -- would not have been self-evident to persons from the ancient era.  Something has happened between Plato and Aristotle, on the one hand,  and Jefferson & Co. on the other.

And whatever it was (I would argue it was the Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers in cooperation with the Renaissance restoration of Greek humanist culture, codified by Descartes' opening paragraph of Discourse on Method), it was mostly good. ]

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

[ Notice how far they've come since ancient and medieval times (when it was assumed that Governments are instituted among Men to make them better Men, to make them virtuous and moral).

And notice how far they are from Communism and Fascism (which argued that governments are instituted among Men to tie those men into a cohesive, unitary organism and thus give Men's lives meaning.) ]

–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.

[ A government that doesn't fulfill its telos is a bad government, by definition, and therefore is a government that does not deserve to rule.  Being a bad government, a defective government, a broken government, a non-functioning government, it's really not a government.

When a government devolves into such a non-government, the citizens under it have the right to force government back on track, to get it back to fulfilling its telos. ]

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.

[ Which implies that the causes that lead Jefferson & Co. to declare that they are setting up new governments are neither "light" nor "transient," and that the evils they are suffering under the British government are no longer "sufferable."

Evidently a certain alternate chapel speaker at Messiah College would disagree. . . . ]

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.

[ (This is pretty much a quotation/paraphrase of a sentence from Locke's Second Treatise, sec. 225.)

It has become clear to Jefferson and Co. that the British government's goal is to treat them not as citizens, but as slaves, and thus to not act as a government, but as a Despot, a Tyrant.  And rather than protecting them, the British government has abused them.

In other words, the British government has ceased to act like a government, and therefore has practically declared itself to no longer be the government of the American states.

And what is the American response to be?  War?  No.  Simply, the formation of new governments.  Which, of course, the Brits would react to with violence, and therefore the Americans would react to with violence.  But still.  This is not a declaration of war, but of independence. ]

–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.

[ And here begins the list of causes that make continuation in the current arrangement insufferable, and make it the duty of the American states to declare themselves their own governments, independent of England.

In what follows, Jefferson and Co. simply assert what all educated British persons would have understood to be examples of legitimate reasons for dissolving a government, based on John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government (from 1690), chapter 19, "Of the Dissolution of Government."

In fact, it is pretty clear from reading this list that Jefferson & Co. Locke's Second Treatise open to chapter 19, and were listing all the ways in which what King George & Co. had done clearly met Locke's criteria.

Notice that Locke's criteria are not criteria for revolution per se, but criteria for determining when a government, by its actions, had made itself a non-government, had dissolved itself, done away with itself. ]

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.

[ On the above three points, see Locke, secs. 215 and 219. ]

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

[ On the above three points, see Locke, secs. 215 and 216. ]

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.

[ On the above two points, see Locke, secs. 215 and 219. ]

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 harrass 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.

[ A violation of Locke's principle that the legislature is superior to the executive.  See chapter 13.  This is, therefore, a usurpation (see chapter 17). ]

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:

[ On the above point, see sec. 217. ]

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:

[ On the above point, see sec. 219. ]

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

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

[ See chapter 11, secs. 140 and 142, and chapter 19, sec. 221. ]

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits 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:

[ See Locke, secs. 212 and 216. ]

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

[ See Locke, sec. 214. ]

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

[ That is a very Lockean point to make. ]

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

[ See Locke, sec. 221. ]

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.

[ And all of that would have to be pretty scary, from Jefferson & Co.'s point of view.  Notice here the (ironic) contrast between Jefferson & Co.'s respect for the people of the world, and their expectation that the people of the world will feel sympathy for them having to face attacks by "Indian Savages."  Though, of course, it's not just "Indian Savages" that Jefferson & Co. think are "savages."  They portray King George himself as a "savage," though in other terms.  ]

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.

[ In other words, they've tried the whole talking thing.  They've acted on the assumption that their abusers are rational beings.  They've attempted to treat them with respect, as rational dialogue partners.  But it takes two to tango.  See Locke, chapter 18, "Of Tyranny." ]

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish 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.

[ Ditto. ]

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.

[ Notice the plurals.  "Free and Independent States."  Thirteen.  Not one country, but thirteen.  Interesting. ]

____

Conclusion

^{[ Intro | Declaration | Conclusion ]}

So, there you have it.  That’s why the American states declared their independence.  And they had excellent reasons.

Following the (immortal!) standards of the time — namely, those enunciated by John Locke, roughly 90 years before — they were merely publicly announcing what was in fact the case:  the British government had, through their actions, declared themselves to no longer be the government of the American states.

____

Now, of course, they knew what would happen next.  They knew that the British government would respond to this document not with another document, but with guns.

And they knew that they and their fellow citizens of the thirteen American states would respond to those guns with more guns.

But sometimes you have to take the right stand, regardless of the consequences.

____

On the 4th we celebrated the Declaration of Independence, not war.  And there is much to celebrate in the Declaration of Independence.

1. It has done immeasurable good for the way in which Americans tend to think about things that the first of our “Founding Documents” framed the people of the world as rational agents with whom reasoning was to be the obvious, first, and preferred manner of interaction.  The first of our “Founding Documents” was a rational defense of equality and independence to a rational audience of equals, not a declaration of war or a declaration of our own glory or superiority.
2. It has done immeasurable good that the first of our “Founding Documents” declared the equality of all humans to be rationally-obvious.  With this idea firmly imprinted on the minds of Americans as one of our founding principles, slavery and gender discrimination could only remain in place for so long.  Ideas have consequences, especially when you base your political system on them.
3. It is something to be celebrated that the first of our “Founding Documents” presented war-instigating political acts as things that should only be undertaken if they can be rationally defended before a world of rational observers, based on a certain set of universal principles anchored ultimately in God, and God-given human dignity.
4. Is something to be celebrated that the first of our “Founding Documents” is, in the terms of modern progressive theology, a “prophetic document” that “speaks truth to power” in defense of justice for the oppressed, even in the face of the physical danger that such a prophetic act put the Signers (the first of our national “prophets”?) in.

And I think those are all worthy of some fireworks.

Tags: 4th of July, Declaration of Independence, Fourth of July, Independence Day, John Locke, Second Treatise, Thomas Jefferson