The Declaration of Independence for Dummies, Part 1

tame | Thursday, May 15, 2003 | tame

[tame]

While learning the Declaration Of independence by heart, I realized that many readers may "pass over" so many of the beautiful phrases without really grasping their meaning. Therefore, I have endeavored to offer the following "Declaration of Independence for Dummies" in "street corner English".

Actual words/phrases of the Declaration of Independence will be italicized, with my simpler translation following on normal font. Here Goes:

”When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary or one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...”

Whenever a group of people needs to split from their government...

”...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...”

...and assert their God given independence and equality...

”...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation.”

It’s always important to spell out the reasons why.

”...We hold these truths to be self-evident...”

We think it’s pretty obvious...

...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...

...that God created every person equal, and he gave each person specific unchanging rights which should never be trampled upon...

”...that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

...these include the right of the people to live life in freedom (without undue harm), and pursue their dreams and goals.

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

The very reason we have man-made governments is to protect these rights, not to interfere with them. Furthermore, whatever power and authority governments have are given by the people’s permission and limited to their protection.

”...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people the alter or to abolish it...”

When any government starts to undermine the very purpose of protecting the life, freedoms, and happiness of the people, then they have the right change the government or, yes, even to pull the plug on the government if things get too bad.

”...and to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles, and organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The people have the right to set up a newer, better government based and organized on tried and true rules that protect, rather than threaten, their safety and happiness.

”Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;”

Now, it’s not wise to change a long standing government for some trivial or fleeting reason or for the latest political fad;

”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.”

And, in fact, history shows that people are more likely to put up with unbearable evil (They even get used to it!), than they are to correct the problem. You know the saying: Put a frog in hot water and he’ll jump out. But put him in cool water and gradually turn up the heat, and he’ll fry to death.

”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.”

But when a government becomes tyrannical and abusive with consistent, repeated violations of the people’s rights, with the intent to make them slaves of the state, then the people have the right–in fact, the duty to revolt against the government, and put new rules in place to protect their future rights.

[tame]

Your thoughts and insights could benefit us all. If you have an alternative phrasing fell free to shae it.

[tame]

I offer the following for your review

[goldstategop]

Bravo. Have you thought about publishing this in the world famous Dummies series of guides? You know, the one with the bright yellow covers.

[tame]

Could you please trouble shoot this for me? Would it be good in the classroom?

[tame]

Thank you:-) I thought about it.

[tame]

heads up

[tame]

Trouble shoot please:-)

[tame]

Trouble shoot this one, please.

[tame]

Good morning! Long time no see:-)

[tame]

Hi, Gracie! Missed you last Friday at Blackstone and Shaw. Hope to see you around. Here's something for your pleasure.

[tame]

Hi, fellow Fresnans! Enjoy!

[tame]

Thought on this?

[David Isaac]

In these present days, we had better be careful of that which we espouse. Your translation is very good, but the words could be considered seditious by many. Are you a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy? It is not too much of a stretch to consider the government spoken of in that great document, to be our present one. (Or was that the point?)

Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor have been lost before in the fight against tyranny and will, undoubtedly, be lost again.

[backhoe]

Good morning, tame- at a fast glance your essay looks good- more people need to ponder things in such a fashion.

[error99]

The Declaration of Independence is a such great document.
It is too bad that so much of it was never actually written into law.

[corlorde]

Great post!

[mc5cents]

Could be a chapter in here...

[brityank]

Nicely done.

(Psst! Frogs boil in hot water.)

:^)

[GretchenEE]

bump for thorough read

[MSSC6644]

As a former teacher of high school American literature, I would have my A track students try to write the Declaration in their own words. The exercise had many benefits. No matter how long they worked on it, they eventually realized that the assignment was a trick: Jefferson wrote a perfect document.

Yours is a good explanation, though.

[Aquinasfan]

I don't think the phrase "pursuit of happiness" directly translates to pursuing "dreams and goals." Jefferson borrowed the concept from Aristotle. Aristotle considered "happiness" to be the ultimate end for all people. Granted, what makes individuals happy is determined subjectively in part but, overall, Aristotle believed that the things that make people happy are universal and objectively determinable.

Aristotle considerd the ability to reason to be the highest attribute of mankind. Therefore, he considered the ability to reason and to act in accord with reason to be essential in achieving human happiness.

Maybe a better translation would be "to live in freedom and to pursue the proper desires of their hearts," "to live in freedom in order to be able to lead a virtuous life," or "to live in freedom in order to be able to act in accord with reason."

[buffyt]

Excellent! Put into today's modern language, but not street slang. GOOD JOB!

[buffyt]

Congressman Ron Paul told us at a local meeting at my house that the Right to the Pursuit of Life Liberty and Happiness means LIFE = No Abortion.

[seams2me]

Only problem I see, is a frog in water would boil, not "fry".

[Tribune7]

good job, Tame

[Lee'sGhost]

There's too much talk of God in there. Edit and change to something that is meaningless and acceptable to America hating libs.

[Remedy]

When any government starts to undermine the very purpose of protecting the life, freedoms, and happiness of the people, then they have the right change the government or, yes, even to pull the plug on the government if things get too bad.

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 COURT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish CORRECT it, and to REinstitute FEDERALISM 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 JUDGES Governments long established should not be changed IMPEACHED for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by IMPEACHING JUDGES 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 JUDICIAL Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government IMPEACH & REMOVE, and to provide new Guards JUDGES for their future security.

TREASON AT THE 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Arthur Alarcón, Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Ronald Gould are foul men and grotesque judges. They are a disgrace to their profession and an insult to America. They should be impeached immediately and should never again hold any public office in this land.

1. Impeaching Federal Judges:A Covenantal And Constitutional Response To Judicial Tyranny
2. GOV : Congress, the Court, and the Constitution
3. GOV : Congress, the Court, and the Constitution (2nd & 3rd excerpt)
4. GOV : Congress, the Court, and the Constitution (LOUIS FISHER)
5. GOV : Lincoln on Judicial Despotism
6. GOV : Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution:Jefferson's View

[StriperSniper]

(Psst! Frogs boil in hot water.)

I'm busy the night tame is having that dinner party!;-)

tame - Good job.

[MHGinTN]

I'm sorry to say this, my friend tame, but you've erred.

You wrote : "...that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

And your translation is "...these include the right of the people to live life in freedom (without undue harm), and pursue their dreams and goals."

Tame, the unalienable right to Life is far more than a right to privacy or a right to live in freedom, it is the right to be alive because your Creator granted to You LIFE and you remain innocent toward your Creator in that Life; the unalienable right to LIFE is the the unalienable right to not be arbitrarily killed due to some ruling passed by a legislature which dehumanizes a class of humans to which you may fit due to color of skin or age or location, etc. That may not seem like much to you on this thread, but a poster named P_A_I on another thread has tried to alter the clear wording of the DI to read 'right to private life, in order to speciously support the unsidedown spin of the syllogistic flow/the superiority of rights asserted with the positioning in 'Life (first), (then) Liberty, and the (finally) pursuit of Happiness'.

[I still care]

I am printing this out to share with my homeschool group.

[yankeedame]

Maybe a better translation would be "to live in freedom and to pursue the proper desires of their hearts,"...

Ah, my friend, but here we enter some very deep waters.

[lizbet]

bump for later studying....

[eBelasco]

a newer, better government based and organized on tried and true rules

I don't get the "tried and true" sense from the original. The principles of the Founding Fathers were certainly not tried and true, they were Revolutionary.

[moodyskeptic]

Good job. It's sad but true that so many Americans have a shallow grip on beautiful language and therefore older texts baffle them. Ever read love letters from the 18th century? This updating concept is a good mental challenge. I noticed that you ended up with more, not less words.

[yankeedame]

"...to Life is far more than a right to privacy or a right to live in freedom, it is the right to be alive because your Creator granted to You LIFE and you remain innocent toward your Creator in that Life; the unalienable right to LIFE is the the unalienable right to not be arbitrarily killed due to some ruling passed by a legislature..."

Well, perhaps, but we must remember that this document was written in the 18th century with the 17th century less than 100 year in the past; a time well within the remembrance of the writers' parents and grandparents.

IMHO when the term "Life" was used it meant not life as in the biological sense, e.g. growing, breathing, responding to stimui, etc. Instead, it meant life as a person's/personal activities, fortune and/or manner of being. That my life belongs to me, and your life belongs to you and John Doe's life belongs to him -- not to any prince, king, czar, emperor, etc. to whom subjects, not individuals, to be moved around, dictated to, disposed of however the sovereign wished.

Two examples:

-In several German kingdoms of that time and before, whatever religion the current monarch was so to, automatically, were the people- like it or not. Prince X is Catholic ergo everyone in his realm was now Catholic. He dies and his cousin Prince Y , a Luthern, now rules well, then, everyone in the kindgom is **POOF** a Luthern, like it or not.

- When Peter the Great of Russia built St. Petersburg entire towns and cities were uprooted and transplanted to the czar's new city- like it or not.

"Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", when looked at through 18th century eyes, meant freedom from the role of pawn on a royal chess board.

[Eastbound]

Right on the money. When remedy is denied, woeful are the people. We must get back to 'noun jurisdiction'. Tired of being a 'verb'.

[apackof2]

Maybe a better translation would be

I agree

A better and true translation

[tame]

(Psst! Frogs boil in hot water.)

YES! You're absolutely correct! Why did I write "fry"???

Oh, well. I'll correct in later editions.

[tame]

the words could be considered seditious by many.

Exactly:-) The founding fathers were certainly considered as much. I have a hunch Jefferson would have found our modern state to be worse than that of which he wrote.

Are you a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

Okay. Why not:-)

[tame]

Hi, Aquinasfan, great to here from you! Thanks for your insights. I'll interact.

I don't think the phrase "pursuit of happiness" directly translates to pursuing "dreams and goals."

The phrase "dreams and goals" emncompasses much of the pursuit of happiness.

Jefferson borrowed the concept from Aristotle.

I was not completely content with my translation on that point, but I think t serves the purpose.

I offer the following not to diminish, but maybe even add to your thoughts:

Jefferson's language was influenced by many of the great thinkers with which he was familiar, especially in Greek thought. In his use of "the pursuit of happiness" I think he also employed concepts regarding industry and private "property" rights, and the satisfaction to be found in pursuit of the same.

Aristotle considered "happiness" to be the ultimate end for all people...Aristotle considerd the ability to reason to be the highest attribute of mankind. Therefore, he considered the ability to reason and to act in accord with reason to be essential in achieving human happiness.

Not knowing which work of Aristotle (and Jefferson's influence) your referring to, I think my translation seems consistent with your statement, as the said abilities to act in accord with reason are certainly dreams and goals of reasoble men for a perfect union.

Maybe a better translation would be "to live in freedom and to pursue the proper desires of their hearts," "to live in freedom in order to be able to lead a virtuous life," or "to live in freedom in order to be able to act in accord with reason."

I like it, but again (if I'm correct) Jefferson had the pursuit of industry and property very much in mind when writing his phrase.

I'll defintely kick this around and continue researching. Thanks again!

[tame]

I'm sorry to say this, my friend tame, but you've erred...the unalienable right to Life is far more than a right to privacy or a right to live in freedom, it is the right to be alive because your Creator granted to You LIFE and you remain innocent toward your Creator in that Life;

I'm happy to say, my good friend MG, that there is no error on that part of the translation since I specifically mentioned "without undue harm" having that very concern in mind. I don't think I wrote a word about "privacy" in that clause, but I'll look again.

[tame]

I am printing this out to share with my homeschool group.

GREAT idea! You all can discuss what may be right as well as wrong or a little off concerning the translation, and alternative readings. I do hope you print out the whole thread since there are some good observations, especially that the frog would "boil", not fry, lol!

[tame]

Excellent! Thanks fir the links, too:-)

[tame]

There's too much talk of God in there. Edit and change to something that is meaningless and acceptable to America hating libs.

LOL! Exactly the point! The Declaration of Independence, in effect, has been ruled an unconstitutional violation of separation of church and state by the radical leftists.

[tame]

I don't get the "tried and true" sense from the original. The principles of the Founding Fathers were certainly not tried and true, they were Revolutionary.

I respectfully disagree. The Constitution had not yet been framed, and when it was framed the principles were tried and true principles practiced in part by past civilizations (not the least of which was the nation of Israel in the Hebrew scriptures).

What was revolutionary was the combination of all these principles in one government in the later Constitution.

[bmwcyle]

bookmarked for the liberals to read.

[tame]

bookmarked for the liberals to read.

Hello, ole' friend! I didn't know leftists read old American documents.

[tame]

It is too bad that so much of it was never actually written into law.

It's not too late, is it?

[tame]

malakhi Could you please link this thread to your Never Ending Story/Chronicles thread?

Hi, Dr. Eck. How are you?

[Tamzee]

It is one of my favorite pieces of written work and a marvel, but Jefferson freely admitted borrowing passages from John Locke's wonderful works

---

Thomas Jefferson, along with the other Founding Fathers, adhered to rather conventional 18th century political ideas, derived mainly from the works of Locke and Montesquieu. The Declaration of Independence, which is often cited in the media as a marvel of originality, is nothing but a trite paraphrase of the leading ideas in John Locke's 1693 "Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government". John Adams thought the DOI was hackneyed, and James Madison apologized for its plagiarism by saying that "The object was to assert, not to discover truths."



John Locke, Concerning Civil Government, 1693, second essay, Ch. 19

Secondly: I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected...



Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, 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.


http://www.anesi.com/q0033.htm