The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. 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. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

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 harass 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 protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

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 and 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.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

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.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows: New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

It needs to be torn apart and replaced with what was originally established and intended

So you tear down the Executive Branch and replace with....an Executive branch? How about the Congress? Still bicameral? Will there be a Supreme Court? Or something else? Can we keep the bill of rights or shall we toss that out as well? What is in place is the same form as was instituted in 1787. Unless you have a better idea on a form of government, I don't see what demolishing this one will prove. You'd only replace it with the same thing, which would have all the same pros and cons.

Any government that for all intents and purposes recognizes no real limits on its power -- that's not a republican form of government.

I don't agree with this statement. Our government does recognize limits. The most striking example is straight from 1787: constitutional amendment. The people are sovereign.

I wish more kids were taught American history. They all should get goosebumps when they read our founding documents.

I am reading the John Adams biography right now by David McCullough. It is a great book. What great people we had at that time, and thank god for it.

I always wonder if we could do it again if we had to.

"The coming revolution? "

Absolutely NOT. I simply want "we the people" to demand that our elected officials DO THEIR JOB!

I love our country. I've served in the military to help defend it. Many of my family have died for it since it's founding. "We the people" have given the Federal government its authority. That authority is listed in the Constitution. We have arrived at the point that most elected officials view the Constitution as an obstical to good government.

It is ABSOLUTELY true. We are governed now by whatever the public can be convinced that the majority want.

That's not true. Take Miguel Estrada as an example. It appears from the polls he has majority support. But a minority, through their representatives in Congress, are able to block his appointment.

Take impeachment. A majority of Americans consistently said they did not want the President to be impeached. The House impeached him anyway.

Take the War in Iraq. A majority favored the war, but we are still undergoing investigations by the minority which seek to exploit any problems they may uncover. Through this adversarial process, people are held accountable.

But the simplest way to prove your statement wrong is to ask: Did we the people vote on the tax cut? Did you cast a vote on the tax cut, or the war? No. End of story. Even the President HIMSELF has no Idea what form of government we have. He keeps referring to us as a Democracy

Presidents all do that. I don't love that either.

If we turned back all the idiocy it would hopefully take another 200+ years to screw it up again.

How far back do you go? And how do you decide? It seems to me that since each state has a statehouse, with representation, and we have a Federal government bringing all the states together, again with bicameral representation, an amendment process, and courts, a free press, and a free market, that it's a little tough to justify "tearing" all that down in order to make it better.

Just because you don't like the OJ verdict, doesn't mean you burn down the courthouse, or revert back to English common law and begin our legal history all over again. Our government provides instruments with which to work. They have defined roles and limitations, but those are, as always, subject to our own ability to mind them.

So, how do you decide what is "idiocy" that needs turning back, and what isn't? Do I get to vote on it? Oh, that would be demon democracy. OK, do I get to vote for representation who will decide? How will it be determined? State by state? That's the republican way. So, let's see, we'll elect representatives from each state, then we'll have them all meet someplace, debate and vote on what to do, and we'll call it a Congress....

Get my drift? The instruments are all there and perfectly functional. Your problem is with the people. So what do you do? Kill people who disagree? Take away their rights? Clearly, a lot of Americans think Medicare is NOT idiocy in need of rolling back. Our system isn't keeping your from rolling it back. The people are!

“That's not true.” – O.K. lets dissect this thing.

“Miguel Estrada” The only reason that his appointment is held up is because of his stand on abortion. The minority in Congress are allowed to hang up his appointment because we have been convinced that the majority of our population is in favor of abortion.

“Take impeachment. A majority of Americans consistently said they did not want the President to be impeached. The House impeached him anyway. “ – He was not removed from office was he. The only sitting President that materially aided a hostile foreign power (China). Was left in office after treason because the MAJORITY wanted him to remain in office. It is the Constitutional duty to REMOVE from office those who have committed treason, but in order to prevent the majority from demanding that they do their job, they allowed the whole thing to get sidelined into his sexual habits. The people who put him in office Knew he was a moral garbage can, but didn’t care.

“Take the War in Iraq. A majority favored the war” Only after the massive “he’s a boogie man” campaign. The MAJORITY wanted to go and we went. I might add that Congress deliberately refused to do their job and declare war this time. (Ron Paul submitted a bill to do just that and it was never allowed out of committee).

“Through this adversarial process” primarily show. Have you EVER known one of these processes to accomplish anything? Have you ever known any of these processes to determine anything other than that the Govt. was right all along?

Keep in mind I did not say that we VOTE as a democracy. We are ruled primarily by poles that “determine” opinion.

On a more personal note - I've got to get back to work. I'll look in a bit later.

Have a FANTASTIC day!

"Oh, that would be demon democracy"

Our founders considered a Democracy to be an unstable fom of government. (both the federalist and anti-federalist papers).

We have a Democratic REPUBLIC. the difference is the rule of LAW. You mentioned medicade. There is no authorization in the Constitution for such activity. I'll agree that now it would be difficult to go back, but if past generatins had required that the Government operate INSIDE its Constitutional limitations then you would be able to take care of yourself when you retired on the 45-50% tax extraction that the Government takes.

I'll agree that the FORM of government is good and I have no desire to change it. I want "we the people" to REQUIRE that our elected officials DO THEIR JOB.

If the judicial branch decides to legislate then impeach them - they have no legislative authority. If the executive branch decides to legislate - remove them from office. If our Senators and representatives refuse to uphold their oath and support the Constitution - vote them out. If "we the people" would continue to do that, before long we would have a Constitutionally functioning government again.

Past Democrat...

Interesting name. I have not associated myself with a party for quite some time. I even got a letter from the RNC saying that they missed me. I wrote back and told them that I was right where I have always been, standing on the Constitution. Anytime they wanted to come back; I'll be here.

Anyway, back to the subject....

Most of the time I have voted Republican basically because I thought the candidate to be the least dangerous to our Republic. For the first time in my life I'm in a real dilemma.

I'm just not sure who is the most dangerous now. I had no idea it was possible but I believe that the current occupant of the White House has less respect for the Constitution that the previous. On the other hand, even though I do hate “single issue” people, I believe that anyone who believes that it is O.K. to grind up a child just because he/she hasn’t left the womb (although entitled to that opinion) is unfit for any public office because they fail to understand the very foundation of life itself.

Welcome to the right side! LOL!

Have a GREAT DAY!

I have GOT to get back to work! – This place is addictive!

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

I think the SCOTUS could take a lesson from how "Indian Savages" conducted their business without distinction to gender or race.

You mentioned medicade. There is no authorization in the Constitution for such activity. I'll agree that now it would be difficult to go back, but if past generatins had required that the Government operate INSIDE its Constitutional limitations then you would be able to take care of yourself when you retired on the 45-50% tax extraction that the Government takes.

Vin Suprynowicz put it very eloquently:

...Fast forward 210 years. As a recipe for limited government, this Constitution now matches the creature it's supposed to describe about as well as a Chihuahua's carry-on "Pet Kennel" would fit a loping Irish wolfhound. ...

And what about the 10th Amendment, which specifies, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means 90 percent of the laws, agencies, orders and regulators now pouring forth from Washington like a torrent from a broken dam are null and void -- deformed, fatherless creatures, apt to melt away like Goblins if ever tested in the harsh daylight of the Bill of Rights.

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.