Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Retaining Harder than Declaring Our Independence
Townhall.com ^ | June 28, 2012 | Jackie Gingrich Cushman

Posted on 06/28/2012 3:25:44 AM PDT by Kaslin

We declared our independence from Great Britain 236 years ago next week. It was a declaration long in coming, brought about by the overreaching rule of King George III and Britain's insistence on taxation without representation.

The taxation began in the 1760s, the Boston Massacre occurred in 1770, the Boston Tea Party in 1773, and the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April of 1775.

Patrick Henry's call to action, "Give me liberty, or give me death," was the first strong public statement that, if we were to be free, if we were to have liberty, then we would have to fight Britain. Prior to Henry's speech to the gathering of Virginia delegates in Richmond, the prevailing belief was that we could negotiate with Britain.

Henry lay down the gauntlet and clearly presented his understanding of what we were facing.

Our choice was liberty or death.

Our founders chose to take the challenge and declared our independence from Britain on July 4, 1776.

Our Declaration of Independence is a three-part document: the first a declaration of freedom, including our understanding of the natural order of authority and power; the second a long list of grievances, reinforcing the belief that there was no choice but to declare our independence as a free country; the third an acknowledgment of risk and the oath of the signers to one another.

The first section is the one that is most often quoted: "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."

This introduction represents the core of American Exceptionalism. We are exceptional as a nation not because we are inherently better people (people are the same everywhere), but because our government is built on a different structure than those of other countries. Our founders understood and articulated our belief in a creator (God), who endows people with rights. The people then loan the rights to the government to secure their individual rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

The introduction also provides for recourse if government becomes destructive to individual rights, "to alter or to abolish it," meaning the government.

The second part, less often referenced, lays out the reasoning for why we were seeking independence, a reasoning that included a long list of King George III's grievances.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ... 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."

A detailed list of grievances for all the world to view followed.

Our founders concluded the document with the pledge to each other, and an invocation of God. "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."

Knowing that their declaration would be seen as an act of treason by the king, the signers also knew that, if they were not successful, they would risk losing their lives.

This document declared us free, outlined the foundational understanding of our rights, from whom they came, and our responsibilities to maintain them.

These days, of ongoing budget deficits, increasing regulation and taxation, retaining our independence might be more challenging than the original declaration.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: foundingfathers; greatbritain; kinggeorgeiii

1 posted on 06/28/2012 3:25:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Well, Doctor (Ben Franklin), what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Fathers were right even in their predictions for the future.


2 posted on 06/28/2012 3:56:15 AM PDT by Pollster1 (A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Its simple really.We just follow the same format and declare iourselves independent from the nationalist socialists led by Obama.Obama BTW is guilty of many of the
same crimes, and similar ones, as perpetrated by George III against the People.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 4:06:17 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

That’s already been tried, it was called the Civil War. The right to alter or abolish a form of government is the right of the winner of a conflict.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 4:24:16 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

If at first you don’t succeed.........


5 posted on 06/28/2012 4:33:49 AM PDT by Bob Buchholz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Though it is disputed whether George Washington was the author (or even uttered these words, though I'd like to believe it is something he would have said) of the following, I nevertheless subscribe thereto:

"I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees!"

6 posted on 06/28/2012 4:46:07 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

sfl


7 posted on 06/28/2012 5:05:29 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The 17th amendment and the abuse of the commerce clause have ripped the Republic to shreds.
8 posted on 06/28/2012 5:26:39 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The only thing more difficult now than what they faced when declaring independence from King George is how to maintain our liberty without necessity for a second armed revolt.

Our test comes from how insistant and successful the liberal/socialists prove to be in playing the Constitution against itself. In the past the “progressives” have not been willing to push hard enough or far enough to reignite a revolt similar to 1776. I’m betting that up against our holding steadfast and resolute they will slink back into the shadows again to plot further.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 5:42:54 AM PDT by X-spurt (Its time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 gives Congress authority “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn. Mr. Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas. Mr. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. He was fined anyway. The Court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat; therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.

So here we are today with the largess of federal control trumping every freedom and right reserved to the State and the People.


10 posted on 06/28/2012 5:47:17 AM PDT by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“That’s already been tried, it was called the Civil War. The right to alter or abolish a form of government is the right of the winner of a conflict”


Certainly could be “tried” again. Sort of if at first you don’t succeed (or secede) try, try again.

We need a divorce:
Half of the country wants to live off of the other half. Half of the country thinks it is the moral high ground to kill the unborn. Half of the country believes in a political philosophy that has failed every time it has been tried and usually with millions of casualties.
Half the country disagrees with the founders brilliance of limited government. Half the country claims to support the troops while with every move they undermine them.

These are not minor differences which can be reconciled by 1 or more elections. Out public schools have done the work described in the communist manifesto and have succeed in creating that half of the population at complete odds with the founders.

I want a divorce. Lets split it up. Give us the producers. Give us those who believe in very limited government. Give us the military.

We, again thanks to our public schools, have irreconcilable differences which can only be resolved by a divorce.


11 posted on 06/28/2012 6:14:47 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

We may have to do it again, which is the point made.


12 posted on 06/28/2012 6:34:16 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Another important question> Are we more free now than we were before the Revolution? I would say no, and it’s not even close. And that begs another question> If there had never been a revolution, would we be in better or worse shape now? Was the only point of the Revolution to hang a shingle with stars and stripes? Can anyone argue with a straight face that self-determination has given us more freedom than the average Englishman enjoys today? I don’t trust my fellow Americans to preserve my rights anymore.


13 posted on 06/28/2012 6:45:19 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

IMO, the fundamental problem is there is no “our” anymore. IOW, no diverse but cohesive peoples who place their greater sense of country ahead of personal gain or interest; only fragmented and selfish identity collectives pursuing distinct domination goals.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 6:48:19 AM PDT by Dysart (Race card is tyranny. Don't be cowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

I don’t trust my fellow Americans to preserve my rights anymore.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ditto. The fact is that its every man for himself at this point, and to do that you have to know the constitution and its associated law.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 6:49:14 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer; Bob Buchholz; Candor7
Revolutions inevitably fail as the new regime becomes just as oppressive as what it replaced.
16 posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:13 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“Revolutions inevitably fail as the new regime becomes just as oppressive as what it replaced.”


While recorded history tends to prove this, at least there was a period of time when this country followed the concept of limited government as set forth by the founders.

They gave us the escape clause and it is on our shoulders to use it or lose it.

Governments are always power hungry and just as Lord Acton said; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We have reached our absolute power point with our federal government and many state governments. There can be no dispute that the founders gave us a constitution to retain a limited government and for whatever reason we the people have allowed the government to exceed its constitutional limits.

Decades of public education have given this country millions of spineless parasites which have made generations who live off the productivity of others.

If we ended public education in its current form today it would take generations to repair the damage. We do not have generations as the Marxist communist filth are at the door, they are running the country and IMO they have pushed far enough to trigger the Jefferson escape plan.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 10:48:37 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bob Buchholz

Right on. It looks like it is time to try again.


18 posted on 06/28/2012 11:31:01 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
“Governments are always power hungry and just as Lord Acton said; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Acton was a supporter of the South and its cause as few are today due to the incessant propaganda and ignorance of history.

“There can be no dispute that the founders gave us a constitution to retain a limited government and for whatever reason we the people have allowed the government to exceed its constitutional limits.”

They, being keen students of history and without illusions about human nature, realized that any document however lofty its sentiments, always depended upon a moral and self regulating citizenry.

That we don't have. Instead we have a population that collectively is in the grip of an infantile fantasy where they can have what they want without consequence.

Hundreds of tons of drugs are snorted, injected, swallowed, smoked and huffed by the same population that supposedly is going to govern itself. and on and on.

So why should there be a revolution when the majority have what they want?

19 posted on 06/28/2012 1:50:17 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“So why should there be a revolution when the majority have what they want?”


That is not the case. In Health Care over a majority DO NOT WANT THIS.

This country is almost 50/50 when compared with what the founders intended. The media, given their loud megaphone or being able to buy ink by the tanker load make it sound like most Americans want to live like parasites.

I do not believe for a moment that the left represents more than 50% of the country but what I do believe to my very core is that these position are diametrically opposed and no number of elections will ever resolve the issue.

Should we as a free people (questionable) decide to split and go our separate ways I would make sure we never create public schools with commie teacher’s unions and simply allow vouchers so parents have some control of what is being taught to their children. We cannot afford to have communists continue to teach our kids and just sit back and HOPE the kids reject such stupidity.

I want nothing to do with the left. They are vile human beings who absolutely have to use Saul Alinsky tactics to debate anything as the truth would destroy their position from the get go.


20 posted on 06/28/2012 2:13:32 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

“I do not believe for a moment that the left represents more than 50% of the country but what I do believe to my very core is that these position are diametrically opposed and no number of elections will ever resolve the issue.”

I think the majority will do what they think they can escape the consequences of but the corrupt need not be the majority if they can control the levers of power. Remember the saying, “It’s not who votes but who counts the votes that matter.”


21 posted on 06/28/2012 3:25:04 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Revolutions inevitably fail as the new regime becomes just as oppressive as what it replaced.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I guess then that the AMerican revolution of 1776 has failed and now it is replaced by an oppressive, Utopian , fascist regime. I agree with that.

Good read:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html


22 posted on 06/29/2012 2:02:21 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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