Posted on 06/25/2013 3:50:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Being about a week away from Independence Day, I was doing a little reflecting upon the history surrounding the Declaration of Independence. And I thought it would be of equal interest to many of my readers to look at some often-overlooked aspects of the declaration's production and legacy.
Several historical websites hold some fascinating facts about this national treasure -- including the National Archives and Records Administration's site, at http://www.archives.gov. In addition, on History's website, the article "9 Things You May Not Know About the Declaration of Independence," by Elizabeth Harrison, has some intriguing notes. Let me elaborate on some of those and convey a few others I've discovered.
1) Benjamin Franklin wrote the first declaration of independence.
In April 1775, the Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord. On July 5, 1775 -- an entire year before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence -- the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, written by John Dickinson, which appealed directly to British King George III for reconciliation between the Colonies and Great Britain. Though Franklin signed the petition for the sake of consensus, he radically differed with it and said that stronger sentiments were necessary because the petition was destined to be rejected.
He was so appalled by British atrocities and exhausted of British rule that he planned the first articles of confederation and drafted a declaration of independence to be issued by none other than Gen. George Washington. So strong was the language of the draft that Thomas Jefferson wrote that though some members of Congress -- including him -- "approved highly of it," some were "revolted at it." Jefferson explained in his private commentary that "proposing it to Congress as the subject for any vote whatever would startle many members."
It seems Congress just wasn't ready to throw down the gauntlet yet. My, how things can change in a year!
2) Jefferson had problems with the adopted version of the Declaration of Independence, which was written primarily by him.
On June 11, 1776, the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee of five men (Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman) to write a declaration of independence. The committee, in turn, appointed Jefferson to produce a first draft for consideration, which he did by utilizing other documents, such as his own draft of a Virginia constitution, the Virginia Declaration of Rights and state appeals for independence. The committee and, later, Congress made some revisions to Jefferson's draft before formally adopting it July 4, 1776. In the end, Jefferson was troubled by their revisions, especially Franklin and Adams' removal of a diatribe blaming King George III for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Who knows? Maybe if that paragraph were left in the document, our Founding Fathers might not be maligned so much for being pro-slavery.
3) The Declaration of Independence wasn't signed July 4, 1776.
On July 1, 1776, the Second Continental Congress began meeting in Philadelphia, at what is now known as Independence Hall. Delegates spent the next few days debating and revising the Committee of Five's draft. After adopting the Declaration of Independence on July 4, they didn't sign it for roughly another month because New York's delegates weren't authorized to vote in favor of independence until July 9, and it also took two additional weeks for the declaration to be produced in its final printed form. Most delegates signed the official declaration Aug. 2, but at least six others didn't sign it until later, and two more (Dickinson and Livingston) never signed it at all.
4) The original Declaration of Independence wasn't written on paper.
As the National Archives and Records Administration explains, the original was "engrossed on parchment which is an animal skin specially treated with lime and stretched to create a strong, long-lasting writing support. The printed version is on paper and was read aloud from town squares throughout the colonies, so that those who could not read would receive the news about intended separation from England."
Next week, I will give more little-known facts about the Declaration of Independence, including what happened when George Washington read a copy to the people in New York.
I wrote my latest New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism," to help educate and equip Americans who are not familiar with our founders' America. It not only gives a copy of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution in the back of it but also details how our country would be better off in a host of ways if we turned back the clock to how our founders ran it.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Kaslin. |
|
|
|
|
“In the end, Jefferson was troubled by their revisions, especially Franklin and Adams’ removal of a diatribe blaming King George III for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
“Who knows? Maybe if that paragraph were left in the document, our Founding Fathers might not be maligned so much for being pro-slavery.”
If that paragraph were left in the document, Pickering and other slave state representatives would not have signed the Declaration of Independence.
We are going to need another one soon.
Bookmark
Do not miss this tome by Philbrick who (I hope) enchanted ya'll with Mayflower a few years back. In introducing and developing lesser known pivotal historical figures of the opening battle, like Dr. Warren, it's a singular and timely account. I really savor and recommend all of Nathaniel Philbrick's writings.
All in all I'd say this one is a purrfect read and the pages seemingly turn themselves. Or maybe it's the cat. But, anyway, grab a copy-- you won't regret it.
Very interesting!!! I always enjoy learning more of the founding of this nation!!!
In order to preserve our American republic and distinct culture, we may need something along the lines of a Declaration of Independence or Magna Carta.
America. It was great while it lasted.
The constitution....
Libs hate it, because it restricts their ability to implement their agenda, and to follow it as written would destroy their pet laws and regulations
And they openly mock those who believe in the constitution as written.....
So called social(ist) conservatives hate the constitution because it restricts their ability to implement their agenda, and to follow it, as written’ would destroy their pet laws and regulations...-
And they openly mock those who believe in the constitution as written....
Wow.....just wow
bump
Spot on, aside from one ‘correction’/opinion.
RE: ‘So called ...conservatives’. There is no need to prefix. Either one is a Constitutionalist (define the debate vs. A1S8), or one still utilizes the power of gov’t to obtain ones’ wishes vs. Freedom/Liberty of the Individual.
There are FAR too many, even here, who would keep SS/Medicare (since they ‘paid into’ the system), the Drug War, Welfare (we ‘NEED a safety net’ for those TRULY needy), etc. What loses in those types of debates, is the basis/basics...where does the gov’t get THAT POWER/ability?
We need a safety net. There are unforeseen events, acts of G-d, emergencies. There are options for several without violation of the constitution.
First, any state that wishes to provide a system like that can provide some package of safety net services. Such a state is limited in that it can not inflate the currency to provide for such services.
Second, any person who wishes to pay for another’s rent, health care, food, or to provide for income, is free to do so. Let us call that “Charity”.
Third, any person can create, fund, purchase, or rent shares in a corporation that is free to provide rent, health care, food or income to its members, to the limits of its resources. Such a corporation would be free to operate in any state or territory, subject to the laws of that state (or territory).
The choice is not between a safety net and no safety net. It is between coerced bad and over priced service, and freely arranged, correctly priced service that is the best available.
I beg to differ. The Fed. Gov’t has neither the authority nor the Right to give ANY Citizen the fruits labor of another. And, IMHO, neither should States.
For those ‘emergencies’ differ between all Citizens. It is up to neither the Fed nor the State to pick winners/losers. Farmer floods/drought? tornado/hurricane? Medical?. In each of these examples, what does the mechanic 3 Counties over care (aside from the price increase to cover loses, for example)? Why should his pocket take a hit?
Now, for the rest, one has and always will be Free to give whatever they wish to another. The corps/etc., as you postulate, are left to the generosity of those that wish to give/donate/etc. That is FREEDOM, that is Free Will. You lose both, and more, putting a gun to someones head to pick their pocket.
Again, nothing of what you’ve laid out needs the FORCE of gov’t to make happen. We can see just what it has given us as of today.
No, it doesn’t need force for you to decide to help another. The Red Cross, the Salvation army seem to do good without the federal tax power.
Further, the Constitution mentions a salary to be paid to the President. That would mean the Constitution does mention a power to take from some citizens in taxes to give to others.
Aside from the my conviction that the federal government can purchase services, goods, or labor using funds gained through taxes, and what seems to be your assertion that they can not, I think we mostly agree.
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 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.
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 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:
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.
Note: this topic is from 6/25/2013. Thanks Kaslin, and Chuck Norris! A re-ping!Seems like a good reason for an early Digest ping. After all, we won't be sitting around webbin' it on the 4th, will we?
1) Benjamin Franklin wrote the first declaration of independence.
In April 1775, the Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord. On July 5, 1775 -- an entire year before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence -- the Continental Congress adopted the Olive Branch Petition, written by John Dickinson, which appealed directly to British King George III for reconciliation between the Colonies and Great Britain. Though Franklin signed the petition for the sake of consensus, he radically differed with it and said that stronger sentiments were necessary because the petition was destined to be rejected.
He was so appalled by British atrocities and exhausted of British rule that he planned the first articles of confederation and drafted a declaration of independence to be issued by none other than Gen. George Washington. So strong was the language of the draft that Thomas Jefferson wrote that though some members of Congress -- including him -- "approved highly of it," some were "revolted at it." Jefferson explained in his private commentary that "proposing it to Congress as the subject for any vote whatever would startle many members."
It seems Congress just wasn't ready to throw down the gauntlet yet. My, how things can change in a year!
[snip] 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 the 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. [/snip]
A few years ago I read the entire thing to my kids. Tears turned to anger. There were several of those items that reared there head (taxes, multitude of offices, etc....)
With the recent Supreme Court rulings I can add all of the points about local legislation, etc.
I would guess about 90% of those same arguments could be made today.
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.
