236 Independence Days and Counting, But What Does it all Mean?

Today America enjoys the celebration of 236 years of existence as a nation by noting the day we declared our independence from our Mother nation, England. Sadly, that celebration has, for too many, become the “July Fourth” holiday, a day of picnics, rote parades, “white sales,” and for some a day off work. Of course, we should not and don’t celebrate any “July Fourth.” We celebrate Independence Day, the day we formally separated from our parent nation and took those first unsure steps into the world as a nation of our own.

So, what is this Independence Day all about? Well, for one thing we celebrate the gifts that our Creator have given us. That’s right, our Founding Fathers started this nation celebrating the gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and those natural rights given to us by God, rights that no man can tax away from us, rights no man can legitimately take by force.

Contrary to the God averse America we have stumbled into, the Declaration mentions God, the Creator, or the divine multiple times and the Founders rested their entire claim of liberty and freedom on the claim that no government can legitimately take away the natural rights that mankind should and must enjoy.

The fact is the Founders did not want a nation free from religion (there is no such founding principle as a “wall of separation” as many think of it today, but that is another story for another day). This is not a Godless nation, but a nation based on Christian ideals.

Secondly, the Declaration of Independence is also a list of the wrongs and slights that England perpetrated against us. In the list of crimes against us that the English Crown and Parliament perpetrated against us is detailed many of the rights that free men must enjoy to truly be free men. This list of slights is not just stuffy old history but are timeless principles which should guide all men even today.

And lastly, to that “all men” point just noted. Our Founders did not write a Declaration that only pertained to their situation in their focused pint in history. Instead they wrote a document to inspire every people to take up freedom and liberty as their own. The Declaration of Independence is not just a document for America. It is one that should inspire all men everywhere to throw off the shackles of government imposed slavery. It is a document that is not just for the nascent American people, but one that insists, “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.”

The Declaration of Independence is for humanity. Not just America.

And so that is also our charge. Freedom is a cause for all men, not just Americans. The United States should not shrink from the charge to aid and encourage freedom and liberty for all men.

Please take a minute to read the entire Declaration and re-famliarize yourself with our founding ideals.

Declaration of Independence
[Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776]

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

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 to 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 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. — 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 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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration 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 legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to 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 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 offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in 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, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete 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 of 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 endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is 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 attention 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 levey 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.

Shortlink:

Posted by on July 4, 2012.
Filed under Constitutional Issues, History, Holidays.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Guest

    My American welcomes all, not just Christians, and invites everyone to live by the law of the land, not the bible.

    My country is celebrating it’s independence from tyranny, and right to freely choose the religion of our choice. Nobody should have to live under “Christian rule” unless they independently choose to follow those tenets.

    We’re the land of the free and the home of the brave, and it’s our birthday.

    • jim_m

      Thank you for stating your objections to the Declaration of Independence.

      • Guest

        You’re welcome, on behalf of all of America’s jews.

        • jim_m

          Funny how I have never met a Jew who objected to the fact that Christians founded this country or who objected to the fact that they had to live in a culture that was very different from their own. That’s usually the province of idiot atheists who need to get a clue and start practicing the tolerance they so shrilly speak of.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            One must also wonder when “…all of America’s jews” got together and named DERP! as their spokesman.

          • Commander_Chico

            If you’re going around telling American Jews that “Christians founded this country” and “they have to live in a culture very different from their own,” I guess they’re thinking you’re too deranged to argue with. Leaving aside what you consider “their own culture” – WTF?

            You might look up Mikey Weinstein and the righteous battle he’s been fighting against relentless fundie bible-beaters trying to shove their beliefs down the troops’ throats in the military:

            http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/michael-l-mikey-weinstein/

        • 914

          RACIST!!

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          DERP! DERP!

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        He really should find a country more to his liking.

    • Evil Otto

      Grumpy, you’re a cartoon character. You’re what I would come up with if asked to create a parody of a liberal.

    • 914

      Celebrating independence from tyranny while playing lip service to its backside!

      You go Derp!!

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      DERP !

  • Commander_Chico

    The Founders were Deists/Unitarians, the kind of people fundies hate the most.

    • jim_m

      Wrong. The first Unitarian church in America wasn’t founded until 1784 so none of the founders could be considered Unitarian.

      In reality the founders were a diverse group of people that included a small number of Deists (were there any others besides Jefferson?), Quakers, Congregationalists (the NE crowd), and Anglicans (Episcopals) among others.

      The fantasy that the founders were all Deists is left wing historical revisionism borne of their obvious ignorance (as Chico so kindly demonstrates) of the real history.

      • Evil Otto

        I believe Franklin was a Deist along with Jefferson. The rest were largely Anglicans and Presbyterians with a scattering of others. John Adams and Robert Paine could be considered Unitarians, though you’re right that there was no Unitarian church at the time of the Declaration.

        Chico (I know you’re reading this), THE REST OF THE FOUNDERS WERE CHRISTIAN. And I’m posting this comment as an agnostic… I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I’m not a “fundy,” I’m just interested in the truth. A five minute Google search could have found that information, but you couldn’t be bothered.

        • jim_m

          While Boston is the origin of Unitarianism in the US and there are an awful lot of Unitarian churches in that area, I sincerely doubt that you can provide any evidence that any of the founders would have been Unitarian in their theology.

          • Evil Otto

            Here ya go, Jim.

            John Adams:
            http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

            Robert Paine:
            http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Robert_Treat_Paine.html

            Keep in mind, Unitarian didn’t mean then what it has become today.

          • jim_m

            Well done. Adams was raised as a Congregationalist (as I suggested) but became a Unitarian later in life. But it still would have been after the founding of this nation.

            But you are correct. Back then Unitarians still believed in God, today that is a little less certain.

          • Evil Otto

            I don’t think modern Unitarians believe in much of anything nowadays… well, besides leftist tripe.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It’s like fuzzy bunny worship without the fuzzy bunny.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          It’s not what such lefties don’t know…
          …it’s what they “know” that just ain’t so!

          I also seem to recall that Franklin was raised as a Quaker.

        • Commander_Chico

          Ethan Allen, the Adamses, Robert Paine, Thomas Paine, Franklin, possibly Washington, Ethan Allen, Jefferson were Deists or proto-Unitarians. The broad influence on the Founders was the Enlightenment – particularly John Locke, another Deist. The Enlightenment was a challenge to religion in every sense of the word.

          To the extent that the others were Christians, they were high-church Episcopalians and Presbyterians of the type also hated by fundies nowadays.

          Thomas Paine wrote the Deist/democratic essay The Age of Reason in Munroe’s house in Paris

          Many of the Founders were Freemasons, which has Deist and anti-clerical elements.

          None of the Founders were bible-beaters in the current sense of clowns like Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, etc. They would have been amazed and chagrined that such primitive religious politics had such influence in the USA today.
          Unfortunately, nobody who wrote the kind of things that Jefferson and Madison wrote about religion and the Bible could get elected president today.

          • warnertoddhuston

            I love how you seem to make Unitarians and Diests out to be the same. The FACT is only TWO founders are known to have called themselves Diest. Franklin when he was a young man and Gouverneur Morris. It is a flat out LIE to say “the founders were Diests.” They were NOT. The largest number of the founders were Christians (some unorthodox, yes, but still Christians).

          • Commander_Chico

            Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus. I think that takes him out of the Christian category, at least for today’s “Christians” like you, to start.

            This seems to sum up the hypocrisy of today’s bible-beaters such as yourself:

            1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). “The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

            http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

          • jim_m

            Even those who we would not consider Christians held an essentially Christian world view. They lived in a society that was identifiably Christian in its character, in a society that descended from over 1000 years of Christian influence. You are denying the reality that the influence of the Christian faith extends beyond the church doors and in doing so you look like a fool.

          • jim_m

            Dumbass. You name 9 men. 56 signed the Declaration and only 5 of the 9 you mention are signers.

            SO based on your claim of ~10% of the signers were disposed to some extent toward deism, you then claim that they were the sole and overwhelming influence on society and the nation, that their influence was essentially anti-Christian and that claims of any Christian influence are simply wrong headed.

            Sorry, but you are full of shit.

          • Commander_Chico

            You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence of any intent to found the USA on Christian principles.

            Yes, Munroe and Madison did not sign the Declaration. They did have a big part in drafting the Constitution. Who is more of a “Founder,” Madison or William Paca?

            To compare Thomas Jefferson, Paine, the Adamses, James Monroe, Madison, Franklin with Arthur Middleton and Lyman Hall is ridiculous.

          • jim_m

            Dear ass, My statement is that the very social fabric in which these men lived was inherently Christian. A Christian world view and ethic permeated their thinking even if they themselves were not particularly Christian in their faith. This world view is materially different from the pagan world view that was replaced in England in the 7th and 8th centuries, it is different than the islamic world view that started in the 7th century,

            I asked David Robinson elsewhere the following: ” Why don’t you demonstrate that the United States was somehow founded in
            a vacuum and that the founders had no understanding and were in no way influenced by the culture that surrounded them”

            I challenge you to do the same.

          • jim_m

            And to ignore the contribution of the men like Lyman Hall is equally ridiculous, which is exactly what you are doing in claiming that the influence was solely from men like Jefferson.

          • jim_m

            You, on the other hand, have produced no evidence of any intent to found the USA on Christian principles.

            Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

            or how about Franklin’s comments on his faith? You know the man you just claimed was a Deist:

            “You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

            “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts
            as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon,
            having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

            And it is true that Franklin was not a man who attended church and had little tolerance for the show and ceremony of religion, but he shows here that he is indeed a child of the culture and still believed in the existence of a God who was ultimately Christian in character. He does not deny Christ but merely claims doubts and says that he does not worry himself with the issue.

            Even the supposed non-Christians were suffiiently Christian that if they lived today you would consider them the most conservative of fundamentalists.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, the Founders were men of the Enlightenment, a long way from fundies.

            If you draw out the focus enough, yeah you can say they were Christian-influenced. I’m sure they had vague beliefs in the Golden Rule, etc. They certainly admired the moral teachings of Jesus, moreso than a lot of people who call themselves Christians nowadays.

            When fundies like Warner try to flog this Christian dominionism, what they want is Christian sharia law, to the detriment of everyone else’s freedom.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            He named Ethan Allen twice…, and concedes that Washington is a maybe.

          • Evil Otto

            Chico, first of all, let’s see your definition of “fundy.” After I see exactly what you mean (and I have the feeling your definition is pretty much “any Bible-believing Christian,” if you’ve ever given it any thought at all), we’ll compare it to the words of the Founders.

            You’re not going to like the results.

          • jim_m

            “Fundy” per Chica is anyone who believes that Jesus is God. You may never have read the Bible but that belief makes you a fundy in his tiny mind.

          • Evil Otto

            To the liberal mind (and I used that word guardedly when referring to Chico), it is vitally important that the Founders be presented as close in belief to modern leftism as is possible. Since they don’t have any faith, they must present the Founders as men without faith as well.

            And I am saying that, again, as an agnostic. I understand that the Founders were men of deep faith, many of whom would make modern “Fundies” look like Christmas-Day-Christians in comparison.

          • jim_m

            Indeed. Even Jefferson’s faith would make them squirm if they were asked to follow it.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Wow… A new low for chicka…

        • 914

          How low can he go?!?!@

          He may even pull out his race card and vote for Hopeless change agian!!@? lol

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Well, since the ballot is anonymous and he’s a known liar, we’ll never really know, will we?

    • SCSIwuzzy

      There are 200 or so people that can be considered the founding fathers. Meaning they signed the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, or Constitution, attended the Constitutional convention or served in the first Congress (senate and house). They were all deists or proto-Unitarians? Really? That is like pointing out there were Jews in the 33rd Waffen-SS, therefore the SS was secretly Jewish. Granted, AS BryanD/Chico, you would believe this train of thought….

      Jefferson and perhaps Franklin come to mind as deists, and John Adams and Robert Paine as Unitarian… there were certainly more Quakers than deists and Unitarians combined.
      Most of the Founding Fathers, like most of the colonies were Episcopalian, Presbyterian/Calvinist or Congregationalist (aka Puritans). After those three groups you get the single digit percentages of Catholics, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Quaker, Huguenot etc.

  • 914

    It means we will be rid of this blood sucking administration.

    Good to go!!

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    Warner Todd Huston: “This is not a Godless nation, but a nation based on Christian ideals.”

    Here is a challenge for you. Find in the New Testament verses which say that God has granted Mankind the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    • jim_m

      That’s a bogus challenge since you know that the concept of rights is a modern construction. Why don’t you demonstrate that the United States was somehow founded in a vacuum and that the founders had no understanding and were in no way influenced by the culture that surrounded them. Ass.

      • ryan a

        “That’s a bogus challenge since you know that the concept of rights is a modern construction.”

        Modern in what sense? The concept of “rights” goes pretty far back, jim.

        • jim_m

          Not to when the Bible was written. I don’t believe you will find the term “Rights” used before the Enlightenment.

          • ryan a

            “Not to when the Bible was written.”

            I don’t know for sure about that one. There were Greek thinkers who wrote about the idea of “natural rights” (not in English obviously) around the time of the NT. And there is a clear influence of Greek thought in some NT thinking. Anyway, that would be something worth looking into. An interesting question, actually. Something worth looking into.

            “I don’t believe you will find the term “Rights” used before the Enlightenment.”

            The actual English TERM “rights” comes from Old English (riht/reht). The concept of some sort of natural or human right goes back to the Greeks, at least. Check these:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

            (not the most in-depth, but okay for starters)

    • 914

      He gave you and me life?.. I think God knows what he is doing.

  • ryan a

    “The fact is the Founders did not want a nation free from religion…”

    True. But they also did not want to create a theocracy, for numerous reasons (the recent histories of Europe being one among many). Hence the importance of “freedom of religion.” If there was a state religion, that would not be one of our key ideals.

    “This is not a Godless nation, but a nation based on Christian ideals.”

    You’re right, it’s not a godless nation. With the emphasis upon freedom of religion, it’s a nation that allows for many gods and religions, basically. That’s just how the system is set up, and it works pretty well. There are obvious reasons why our government was structured to include this particular freedom. As for your second part, yes, the US was founded at least in part upon Christian ideals and thinking…but there’s a lot more to it. Don’t forget to include the influence of ancient Greece, the Enlightenment, English common law, key folks like John Locke, and notions of natural law, among others. A pretty fascinating mix.

    • jim_m

      I agree with your point that there was a mixture of influences and ideas that formed the minds of the founders. Unfortunately, it is idiots like Chico who chose the ridiculous and ahistorical claim that the founders were not influenced by Christian thinking what-so-ever and were even anti-Christian in their thinking.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      That, and they were a coalition of different beliefs. They may have largely been Christian, but there is a large divide between the Puritans of New England and the Anabaptists of PA, let alone the Catholics in MD.
      They had to make it clear that none of them would be able to impose their theology upon the others (which my Puritan ancestors would have done in a heartbeat, given the chance.. I wonder what level of horror they would view my Catholicism).