Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?
BBC ^ | 19 Oct 2011 | Matt Danzico and Kate Dailey

Posted on 10/20/2011 12:07:53 PM PDT by FritzG

Was the Declaration of Independence legal?

In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.

On Tuesday night, while Republican candidates in Nevada were debating such American issues as nuclear waste disposal and the immigration status of Mitt Romney's gardener, American and British lawyers in Philadelphia were taking on a far more fundamental topic.

Namely, just what did Thomas Jefferson think he was doing?

Some background: during the hot and sweltering summer of 1776, members of the second Continental Congress travelled to Philadelphia to discuss their frustration with royal rule.

By 4 July, America's founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.

Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.

It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.

At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall.

American experiment

The event, presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray's Inn, London, pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: independence; jefferson; revolutionarywar; secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 10/20/2011 12:07:55 PM PDT by FritzG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FritzG
In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.

LOL well, they're legal now.
2 posted on 10/20/2011 12:09:56 PM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

At the time it was quite illegal. High treason, to be exact.

It also changed the world.

3 posted on 10/20/2011 12:11:18 PM PDT by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

No kidding. Something out of Douglas Adams.

4 posted on 10/20/2011 12:11:19 PM PDT by FritzG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

We won. We recognize it as our law. Therefore it is legal. If we had not backed it up with our guns, it would have been treason. History is won by the aggressive use of force.

5 posted on 10/20/2011 12:11:29 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Of course it was illegal. What a stupid debate.

6 posted on 10/20/2011 12:12:27 PM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I see the Brits (liberal ones) are still butthurt. LOL!

*no offense to my British buds on here*

7 posted on 10/20/2011 12:12:56 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I dunno, but we can certainly replay that little skirmish again if the Brits want.

8 posted on 10/20/2011 12:13:53 PM PDT by bgill (There, happy now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG
Every parent country thinks or declares that the child country can not legally secede from them. That is why we have wars to settle these things. If the child wins, it is freedom and Independence. If the parent wins, it is called a rebellion or insurrection.
9 posted on 10/20/2011 12:13:53 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

These are people with too much time on their hands. They need to be directed into somethin constructive.

10 posted on 10/20/2011 12:14:00 PM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

By the treaty of peace in 1783 King George III recognized the independence of the United States (naming all 13 states). Case closed.

11 posted on 10/20/2011 12:14:07 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
Exactly, of course it was illegal at the time, I don't think any of the Founding Fathers believed otherwise.

When the Signers pledged their lives in support of the Declaration they did so because they knew they could be hung for treason.

12 posted on 10/20/2011 12:14:25 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Rule 303 permitted the Declartion.

13 posted on 10/20/2011 12:14:47 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“...well, they’re legal now.”

And what if they are not? What’s Britain going to do? Repossess the continent? Idiots!

The Brits need to focus their attention on more important matters, like importing more dentists and creating a more appetizing cuisine. (Kidney pie? No thanks, I’ll just have a glass of water and some crackers.)

14 posted on 10/20/2011 12:15:10 PM PDT by Ernie Kaputnik ((It's a mad, mad, mad world.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I’ve read dumber and more stupid articles before, but this is right up there with the most stupid things I have ever read....................

15 posted on 10/20/2011 12:15:10 PM PDT by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

actually, the way the Crown treated the colonies is what was illegal...the Declaration set things right again.

16 posted on 10/20/2011 12:16:56 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Tell you what. Send in the Red Coats and let’s settle the matter.

17 posted on 10/20/2011 12:17:44 PM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a U.S. Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

“legal” according to what?!?!

Of course the Brit’s didn’t think it was “legal”!

The DoI said, we don’t much care what you think and we’re going to go our own way!
The Brit’s didn’t like it, they attacked us, and we kicked their butt, and they went home!
America has been operating independantly, as a sovereign nation for over 235 years.
So, “legal” has little bearing on the subject!
Do the objectors assert it was necessary to have a British grant of freedom, in order for the process to have been “legal”?
Wanna fight about it again?!?!

18 posted on 10/20/2011 12:19:41 PM PDT by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Could this be a preview of worse things to come when Muslim lawyers will force the issue that acceptance of Sharia Law is constitutionally valid?

19 posted on 10/20/2011 12:20:44 PM PDT by 353FMG (Liberalism is Satan's handiwork.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Obama to the Queen:

“Here, your majesty, as our separation wasn’t legal, there’s this little $14 TRILLION tab we’d like you to clear up.....”

20 posted on 10/20/2011 12:21:42 PM PDT by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Rule 303 permitted the Declartion.

21 posted on 10/20/2011 12:22:09 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

It entirely depends upon whether or not our Founding Fathers were right.

Are people bound rightly to a monarch? Or do the people have a say in “the political bands which have connected them” and able “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...”

Is it self evident that... “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...” and “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

They were indeed right. Whether or not it was right, at the time, in light of British law is moot.


22 posted on 10/20/2011 12:22:50 PM PDT by JWinNC (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear

They need to file a “butthurt report”.

23 posted on 10/20/2011 12:23:01 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I’ll let Samuel Adams give the comprehensive response.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Samuel Adams,
The Rights of the Colonists
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence
to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772

Old South Leaflets no. 173 (Boston: Directors of the Old South Work, 1906) 7: 417-428.

Hanover Historical Texts Project

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [Page 418] as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.

The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.

In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.

[Page 419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.

In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that “ the laborer is worthy of his hire.” But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

[Page 420] By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.

III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.

A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union.

The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.

[Page 421] First, “The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society.”

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

“The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges”; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. “There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough.”

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.

These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from the Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.) The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners after seven years’ residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: “And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions [Page 422] of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of England.”

Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three thousand miles’ distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted.

Benjamin Franklin’s Preface
to the English Edition of the Report

All accounts of the discontent so general in our colonies have of late years been industriously smothered and concealed here; it seeming to suit the views of the American minister [Lord Hillsborough], to have it understood that by his great abilities all faction was subdued, all opposition suppressed, and the whole country quieted. That the true state of affairs there may be known, and the true causes of that discontent well understood, the following piece (not the production of a private writer, but the unanimous act of a large American city), lately printed in New England, is republished here. This nation, and the other nations of Europe, may thereby learn, with more certainty, the grounds of a dissension that possibly may, sooner or later, have consequences interesting to them all.

The colonies had from their first settlement been governed with more ease than perhaps can be equalled by any instance in history of dominions so distant. Their affection and respect for this country, while they were treated with kindness, produced an almost implicit obedience to the instructions of the Prince, and even to acts of the British Parliament; though the right of binding them by a legislature in which they were unrepresented was never clearly understood. That respect and affection produced a partiality in favor of everything that was English; whence their preference of English modes and manufactures; their submission to restraints on the importation of foreign goods, which they had but little desire to use; and the monopoly we so long enjoyed of their commerce, to the great enriching of our merchants and artificers.

The mistaken policy of the Stamp Act first disturbed this happy situation; but the flame thereby raised was soon extinguished by its repeal, and the old harmony restored, with all its concomitant advantage to our commerce. The subsequent act of another administration, which, not content with an established exclusion of foreign manufactures, began to make our own merchandise dearer to the consumers there, by heavy duties, revived it again; and combinations were entered into throughout the continent to stop trading with Britain till those duties should be repealed. All were accordingly repealed but [Page 423] one, the duty on tea. This was reserved (professedly so) as a standing claim and exercise of the right assumed by Parliament of laying such duties.

The colonies, on this repeal, retracted their agreement, so far as related to all other goods, except that on which the duty was retained. This was trumpeted here by the minister for the colonies as a triumph; there it was considered only as a decent and equitable measure, showing a willingness to meet the mother country in every advance towards a reconciliation, and a disposition to a good understanding so prevalent that possibly they might soon have relaxed in the article of tea also. But the system of commissioners of customs, officers without end, with fleets and armies for collecting and enforcing those duties, being continued, and these acting with much indiscretion and rashness (giving great and unnecessary trouble and obstruction to business, commencing unjust and vexatious suits, and harassing commerce in all its branches, while that the minister kept the people in a constant state of irritation by instructions which appeared to have no other end than the gratifying his private resentments), occasioned a persevering adherence to their resolutions in that particular; and the event should be a lesson to ministers not to risk through pique the obstructing any one branch of trade; since the course and connection of general business may be thereby disturbed to a degree impossible to be foreseen or imagined. For it appears that the colonies finding their humble petitions to have this duty repealed were rejected and treated with contempt, and that the produce of the duty was applied to the rewarding with undeserved salaries and pensions every one of their enemies, the duty itself became more odious, and their resolution to share it more vigorous and obstinate.

The Dutch, the Danes, and French took this opportunity thus offered them by our imprudence, and began to smuggle their teas into the plantation. At first this was something difficult; but at length, as all business is improved by practice, it became easy. A coast fifteen hundred miles in length could not in all parts be guarded, even by the whole navy of England; especially when their restraining authority was by all the inhabitants deemed unconstitutional, the smuggling of course considered as patriotism. The needy wretches, too, who, with small salaries, were trusted to watch the ports day and night, in all weathers, found it easier and more profitable not only to [Page 424] wink, but to sleep in their beds; the merchant’s pay being more generous than the King’s. Other India goods, also, which, by themselves, would not have made a smuggling voyage sufficiently profitable, accompanied tea to advantage; and it is feared the cheap French silks, formerly rejected, as not to the tastes of the colonies, may have found their way with the wares of India, and now established themselves in the popular use and opinion.

It is supposed that at least a million of Americans drink tea twice a day, which, at the first cost here, can scarce be reckoned at less than half a guinea a head per annum. This market, that in the five years which have run on since the act passed, would have paid two million five hundred thousand guineas for tea alone, into the coffers of the Company, we have wantonly lost to foreigners.

Meanwhile it is said the duties have so diminished that the whole remittance of the last year amounted to no more than the pitiful sum of eighty-five pounds, for the expense of some hundred thousands, in armed ships and soldiers, to support the officers. Hence the tea, and other India goods, which might have been sold in America, remain rotting in the Company’s warehouses; while those of foreign ports are known to be cleared by the American demand. Hence, in some degree, the Company’s inability to pay their bills; the sinking of their stock, by which millions of property have been annihilated; the lowering of their dividend, whereby so many must be distressed; the loss to government of the stipulated four hundred thousand pounds a year, which must make a proportionable reduction in our savings towards the discharge of our enormous debt; and hence, in part, the severe blow suffered by credit in general, to the ruin of many families; the stagnation of business in Spitalfields and Manchester, through want of vent for their goods; with other future evils, which, as they cannot, from the numerous and secret connections in general commerce, easily be foreseen, can hardly be avoided.

Editor’s Notes and Comments

Note from Wells, Life of Samuel Adams

[Page 425] Mr. Adams’s motion, creating the Committee of Correspondence, had specified three distinct duties to be performed, -to draw up a statement of the rights of the Colonists as men, as Christians, and as subjects; a declaration of the infringement and violation of those rights; and a letter to be sent to the several towns in the Province and to the world as the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was assigned to Samuel Adams, the second to Joseph Warren, and the last to Benjamin Church.

When the reports of the several committees were prepared, they were presented on the 20th of November to a town meeting at Faneuil Hall by James Otis, who now, as chairman, made his final appearance in public, —the wreck of one of the most brilliant men of genius that America has produced, but yet sustained by the care and sympathy of some friends and the tender reverence of the people, whose cause he had ever ardently and sincerely supported.

“Samuel Adams,” says Hutchinson, writing to a friend, “ had prepared a long report, but he let Otis appear in it”; and again, in another letter: “the Grand Incendiary of the Province prepared a long report for a committee appointed by the town, in which, after many principles inferring independence were laid down, many resolves followed, all of them tending to sedition and mutiny, and some of them expressly denying Parliamentary authority.”

The report created a powerful sensation, both in America and in England, where it was for some time attributed to Franklin, by whom it was republished. It is divided into the three subjects specified in the original motion. The first, in three subdivisions, considering the rights of the Colonists as men, as Christians, and as subjects, was from the pen of Samuel Adams; his original draft, together with the preparatory rough notes or headings, being in perfect preservation. It is important, not only as a platform upon which were afterwards built many of the celebrated state papers of the Revolution, but as the first fruits of the Committee of Correspondence.

The error of John Adams, when, fifty years afterwards, he attributed this pamphlet to James Otis, gave rise to some interesting letters from both Jefferson and Adams a few years before their death. John Adams, while questioning the credit due to Jefferson, as the author of the Declaration of Independence, had called that document a “recapitulation” of the Declaration of Rights by the Congress of 1774; and, again, writing to Mr. Pickering, he says: “As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it [the Declaration of Independence] but what had been hackneyed in Congress two years before. The substance of it is contained in the Declaration of Rights, and the Violations of those Rights, in the journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet voted and printed by the town of Boston before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams.” (John Adams’s Works, II. 514).

The fact that Otis was allowed to present the report as his final public act may have given John Adams this impression; for, at this time (1772), he himself took no part in public affairs, but devoted his time to professional pursuits. Otis, however, had nothing to do with preparing the paper, and, to the grief of his friends and his country, had long been incapable of any public service. Jefferson, adopting [Page 426] the “supposition” of John Adams as to the authorship of the “Rights of the Colonists,” wrote to Mr. Madison a year later that the “Otis pamphlet he never saw,” and upon this his biographer, continuing the subject in defence of Jefferson’s originality, refers repeatedly to the pamphlet in question as the production of Otis. (Randall’s Jefferson, I. 189.) There certainly is a similarity between the “Rights of the Colonists” in 1772 and the “Declaration of Rights” in 1774, and between them both and the Declaration of Independence; but, as all are founded on the time-honored principles of Locke, Hooker, Sydney, and Harrington, some of whom are duly quoted by Samuel Adams in his treatise, the disputes as to the originality are needless.

But John Adams’s memory failed him in relation to the Declaration of Rights made by the first Congress, as well as in attributing the pamphlet now under consideration to James Otis. He implies that there were two Declarations, the one of Rights, and the other of Violations, which is manifestly incorrect. It would seem, too, that any attempt to lessen the credit of Jefferson, by showing that the essence of the Declaration of Independence was contained in Samuel Adams’s pamphlet of 1772 and the Declaraton of Rights in 1774, must reflect upon whoever claims the authorship of the latter (since the sentiments are identical), unless it be conceded that Samuel Adams, as is more than probable, was largely engaged in composing the Declaration of Rights, and introduced into that paper the same principles he had advanced in 1772.

Here [in the paper of 1772] is embodied the whole philosophy of human rights, condensed from the doctrines of all time, and applied to the immediate circumstances of America. Upon this paper was based all that was written or spoken on human liberty in the Congress which declared independence; and the immortal instrument itself is, in many features, but a repetition of the principles here enunciated, and of Joseph Warren’s list of grievances, which followed the Rights of the Colonists in the report. -Wells, Life of Samuel Adams.

From the Editor Sparks.

[Page 427] The report was the boldest exposition of the American grievances which had hitherto been made public, and was drawn up with as much ability as freedom. Hutchinson says of this report of the committee, that, “although at its first appearance it was considered as their own work, yet they had little more to do than to make the necessary alterations in the arrangement of materials prepared for them by their great director in England, whose counsels they obeyed, and in whose wisdom and dexterity they had an implicit faith. Such principles in government were avowed as would be sufficient to justify the colonies in revolting, and forming an independent state; and such instances were given of the infringement of their rights by the exercise of Parliamentary authority as, upon like reasons, would justify an exception to the authority in all cases whatever; nevertheless, [Page 428] there was color for alleging that it was not ‘expressly’ denied in ‘every’ case. The whole frame of it, however, was calculated to strike the colonists with a sense of their just claim to independence, and to stimulate them to assert it.”

The person alluded to by Governor Hutchinson, as “the great director in England,” was Dr. Franklin, and it is insinuated that he was in effect the author of the report, but this is in no sense true; nor did he wholly approve the measures adopted at that meeting. He thought the affair was carried a little farther than the occasion required at the time, and was afraid that ill consequences would result. It was only the time and manner of bringing the subject forward, however, upon which he had any doubts. To the sentiments expressed in the report of the committee, and adopted by the inhabitants of the town, he fully assented. This is proved by his sending a copy of the proceedings to the press, as soon as he received it in London, with a prefatory notice written by himself. The pamphlet was entitled “The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Town Meeting assembled, according to Law. Published by Order of the Town.”-Sparks.

24 posted on 10/20/2011 12:24:35 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parmy
I don't know. Having lawyers tied up discussing the legality of something over 200 years ago is far better than them bringing legal action against some business.
25 posted on 10/20/2011 12:24:41 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FritzG
Well yes, there were some minor "misunderstandings and differences" from around 1776 to 1783. But then George III came to his senses (at least momentarily) and proclaimed agreement in a signed document (The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783) with what Americans had put their "John Hancock" on as self-evident truths a few years earlier.

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third... and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries...

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

26 posted on 10/20/2011 12:24:56 PM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Welp...better come and arrest us then.

27 posted on 10/20/2011 12:26:05 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG
"Legality" is only meaningful in the context of a legal authority. According to British law, yes the Declaration was illegal. But the whole point of the declaration was that we were declaring ourselves as no longer subject to British authority, and were willing to take arms to enforce that.

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" (Latin: in the face of arms, the law is silent)

28 posted on 10/20/2011 12:27:12 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (When you've only heard lies your entire life, the truth sounds insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

29 posted on 10/20/2011 12:32:05 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

From Shogun

“There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a liege lord.” Yoshi Toranaga

“Unless you win.”John Blackthorne

30 posted on 10/20/2011 12:32:25 PM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

31 posted on 10/20/2011 12:32:25 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

I think it was rule 690 or rule 750 back then with smoothbore muskets.

32 posted on 10/20/2011 12:35:40 PM PDT by Jeff Vader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FritzG
All is forgiven....come home to ah Grandmomma

33 posted on 10/20/2011 12:41:24 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I’ll take Prince William if they take Obama;)

34 posted on 10/20/2011 12:45:19 PM PDT by sodpoodle (Cain - touching the better angels of our nature.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG
Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

As usual with lawyers, barristers, and other sh!t-covered snakes, it's a straw-man argument.

The Declaration of Independence IS a declaration of legality. That's the point of it. That's why we didn't just go straight to a Constitution.

To properly argue this question, you'd have to take on the content of the DOI, since that's where the defense of its existence takes place.


"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."

Defense rests.

35 posted on 10/20/2011 12:45:50 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Good grief!!!

Perhaps they intend to add ‘any subject of the Crown is hereafter to be considered a natural born citizen of the Americas and a beneficiary of its entitlements to governance.’

Yeah - that’s the ticket.

36 posted on 10/20/2011 12:50:52 PM PDT by sodpoodle (Cain - touching the better angels of our nature.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Could this be a preview of worse things to come when Muslim lawyers will force the issue that acceptance of Sharia Law is constitutionally valid?

That's my thinking. This smells of conceptual infiltration.

37 posted on 10/20/2011 12:51:15 PM PDT by Talisker (History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FritzG
It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.<

At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall.

It was until we kicked their ass in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 and then it became, and today remains, very legal.

38 posted on 10/20/2011 12:51:56 PM PDT by USS Alaska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

One thing is for certain, we have too many lawyers.

39 posted on 10/20/2011 12:55:07 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I guess the Brits want to fight again.


40 posted on 10/20/2011 1:00:04 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness." Ronaldo Magnus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

I concur. Your King George III had ever right, nay, responsibility to act.

41 posted on 10/20/2011 1:01:48 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Nuts; A house divided against itself cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
If the child wins, it is freedom and Independence. If the parent wins, it is called a rebellion or insurrection.

Reminds me of a passage from the awesome novel "Shogun".

Toranaga: "It is never acceptable for a vassal to rebel against his Master!"
Blackthorne: "There is one instance where it is acceptable, Toranaga-sama."
Toranaga: "And what is that Anjin-san?"
Blackthorne: "If he wins, Toranaga-sama."

42 posted on 10/20/2011 1:02:04 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Attacking Wall Street because you're jobless is like burning down Whole Foods because you're hungry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Support Free Republic
Click Here to Donate

43 posted on 10/20/2011 1:33:04 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Why? The Crown had invested ENORMOUS resources in the colonies, and needed to earn a return on Her investment. By what right did these British subjects misappropriate the infrastructure of those who had paid for them. It wasn’t right then and it isn’t right now.

44 posted on 10/20/2011 1:35:29 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Nuts; A house divided against itself cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC

Oversimplified. The British was not serfs. They was not owned by their Lord. The British Monarch have always governed by consent of the governed. Of course, they had have to turn to the 50th in the chain of succession to pluck George III’s grandfather up from his position as Elector of Hanover and place him on the highest throne in the world in order to avoid having another Catholic king.

45 posted on 10/20/2011 1:40:07 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Nuts; A house divided against itself cannot stand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

Tough noogies.

46 posted on 10/20/2011 1:40:15 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FritzG; All
If you take Balckstone exclusively, YES. If you factor in Vattell, NO.

If you take Blackstone, the Founders committed treason. Blackstone stated that:

"ALLEGIANCE, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when [during their infancy] they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king to England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a rinciple of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."

I won't cite Vattell - but we know that he stated that men were able to choose their allegiances.

47 posted on 10/20/2011 1:47:48 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

Ask the Brits who surrendered.

48 posted on 10/20/2011 1:53:12 PM PDT by wac3rd (Somewhere in Hell, Ted Kennedy snickers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
-- At the time it was quite illegal. High treason, to be exact. --

Indeed. Subversive of the established order, and radical by empowering the people over their government.

I think it was a once in humanity event, the results of which will be buried by those who write history.

49 posted on 10/20/2011 1:56:21 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FritzG

We won, already - the Brits just need to get over it!!! Geeze!

50 posted on 10/20/2011 1:57:31 PM PDT by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson