Declaration of Independence

[333]

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political bands which connect them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, should require them to declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

WOW, I really admire the opening sentence, always have.

It basically says to all men who yearn for liberty, wish to be free, or sovereign, that; subjugation, servitude, slavery or any form of despotic, omnipotent, oppressive, invasive government is; absolutely, irrevocably, unacceptable.

A human is and ought to be free of such tyranny, and afforded the "separate and equal" consideration of "natural desires of all men regardless of their creator, and are entitled to, simply by being alive."

In other words, a World, or Nation, or State that promotes, peace and prosperity, for all who inhabit it, as opposed to world which exploits, extorts, and enslaves its folk in any form.

That is some pipe dream, and they effected it, they laid the foundation, the remote little seed that flourished for almost a century, before they had to deal with something, culturally hypocritical, Slavery.
They the founders argued immensely over this, to the point the nation may have never congealed.
In the end, they made it a State to State issue, to solidify the new Union.

Today we accept a nation that enslaves and marks it people with, what would have been unthinkable, to its creators, at birth.
A system in which they have very little choice or freedom to aspire because of where and who they were born.
A system more inclined to enslave or render it citizens servitude for meager life, in its social credit based constructs.
A system which the ignorant mob rallies behind the latest, elitist spin doctors, and their catch phrases, to effect laws not at all, for the common good.
A system which even represses the nature of its own creation through social conformity education.
A system so corrupt and perverted beyond all
recognition of its original essence; free, sovereign, individuals, connected solely by these very principles.
A system is not a proponent of freedom.

"A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.." B. Franklin

333

[Fastnought]

Not taught in the public schools the real reason that the DoI was written. That being the 1763 Treaty of Paris, not the Stamp Act.....

[333]

Peace,

I am sorry I do not understand what you mean?

333

[Fastnought]

Peace,

I am sorry I do not understand what you mean?

333

Many wrongfully believe that the root cause of the American Revolution, and the creation of the DoI was spurred by excessive taxation. The DoI in effect was a proclamation for a colonial landgrab of the Ohio terroritory protected by the Treaty of 1763

From Ohio History Central (http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1496)


"On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress formally approved and issued the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote the document. The Declaration consisted of two parts. Listed first were a number of rights that the Congress felt that English colonists deserved. The second part of the Declaration was a description of the numerous ways that England had denied these rights to its colonists. A major complaint centered on England's refusal to allow the colonists greater participation in government. The colonists wanted to be able to elect representatives to the English *Parliament.

Also, many Americans believed that England did not understand or truly care about many of the needs of the colonists. After the French and Indian War, England acquired most of France's North American territory through the Treaty of Paris (1763). England issued the Proclamation of 1763, which forbid English colonists from living west of the Appalachian Mountains. Any settlers currently west of the mountains were to move back to the East. All English territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River was now reserved to Native American people. One reason the French and Indian War had occurred from 1756 to 1763 was to gain access to land in the Ohio Country. By issuing the proclamation, England denied this opportunity to many of its colonists. After more than a decade of petitioning the English government, the colonies decided to declare their independence and begin the American Revolution."

[333]

Peace,

Thanks for clarifying, I agree and have read similar material suggesting the same. There usually are many reasons people get to disagreeing, and the list was certainly long for the colonials to choose. Thanks again good points.


Similar arguments have been made about the treaty of Versailles 11-11-1918 or armistice day, now veterans day, emaciating Germany financially and militarily, accomplishing nothing more then the start of the count down to WW2.

333

[wax]

One must understand the context of current thinking (and more importantly the claims made by the Pope and King at the time) concerning the right to rule in order to understand the declaration and what it meant.


When in the course of human events:

Response: There were no human events and to declare such was heracy! Life on earth was ordained and thus position was also ordained.

it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political bands which connect them with another:

Response: Unheard of! In fact... worse than that! "The people" were allowed political bonds by God, they could not "dissolve" them!

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, should require them to declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Response: Again... at the time this and what follows was a specific slap in the face of ordained right and specifically the Catholic Church and the claim that Kings were born with the right to rule.
People often attempt to read the Declaration as if it was designed to provide function to those who wrote it but in a very real sense it was designed to destroy the claim of those who read it!

To this day people argue over the Phrase, "All men are created equal" in the hopes that it would say something about slavery or the social classes but it was nothing more or less than a "kick in the crotch" to a king who declared his right to rule was ordained by the Pope and thus by God himself!

Now having said all of that:
Lincoln once said that the South could keep slavery if it would avoid war.
He condemned slavery only as a punishment to those who would claim the right of the state over the right of the "Union" (Federal Government).
Does that mean that we should not recognize that Lincoln freed the slaves?
Not entirely but then...
The fear of course is that myth and legend will become fact.
And the fact is for most... for the masses... for the "sheep" this is not something that can be avoided.

John Handcock signed the Declaration first and it is quite apparent that he supported it's ideals.
But he was also a member (in fact founder) of the Son's of Liberty who tortured anyone who spoke out against his ideals by placing tar and feathers on them and hanging them to die so often in the town square that to this day the site is preserved as the "liberty Tree."

"A decent respect for the opinions of man"?
... Mmmm...
I tell you what.
I will decide when and how I shall respect the opinions of man.
Just as the writers of such a wonderful work did.

[walls0stone]

one must also say that no one cause is to blame for any war... *Revolution is often created buy a collection of events...tea party, Boston Massacre, pay for the war in W/France, The issues of the day related to religion, the acts that drove men from Ireland and Scotland.

so to point the finger at one issue is unrealistic.

Abe's act didn't free slaves in the border states, and did not free any slaves in the confed' becouse that was another country. It was done to harm the dixie war horse. But who remembers how many black men fought for the south of their own free will and acord?

[wax]

well stated but as far as the question... None will ever know!

I know that I will never forget my grandmother relating the story of Christian Sealings standing at the gates of an unknown plantation in Georgia as her mother rode by in a wagon. He declared that he was a freed slave but that he had sworn to protect that land for the lady of the house from any northern aggression. The Union soldiers shot him as a "sympathizer" and looted the place. His children joined my ancestor in her wagon and fled to Minnesota.

[walls0stone]

The numbers are stagered becouse the CSA did not list race when a man enlisted. Since war changed the way men looked at each other, Dutch, Irish and Blacks just got alone respectivly till the war was over.

[suijurisfreeman]

wax,
???

You posted, "One must understand the context of current thinking (and more importantly the claims made by the Pope and King at the time) concerning the right to rule in order to understand the declaration and what it meant."

England was Protestant at the time of the American Revolution -- the Church of England had replaced the Roman Catholic Church as the State religion, so I really don't think that the King of England cared what the Pope thought.
However King George III obviously did believe in the 'divine right of Kings'.

You posted, "When in the course of human events:

Response: There were no human events and to declare such was heracy! Life on earth was ordained and thus position was also ordained."

Surely you jest! *Hey, the American Revolution took place during the Age of Reason -- the Enlightenment. *Not everyone was still buying into the belief that kings ruled by 'divine right'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century_philosophy
http://www.allabouthistory.org/age-of-reason.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/reason/index.htm

You posted, "it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political bands which connect them with another:

Response: Unheard of! In fact... worse than that! "The people" were allowed political bonds by God, they could not "dissolve" them!"

Now I'm sure you're jesting!

You posted, "and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, should require them to declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Response: Again... at the time this and what follows was a specific slap in the face of ordained right and specifically the Catholic Church and the claim that Kings were born with the right to rule.
People often attempt to read the Declaration as if it was designed to provide function to those who wrote it but in a very real sense it was designed to destroy the claim of those who read it!"

True, true, but I believe that the Declaration of Independence was the American colonies justification to the world as to why they were no longer under the 'lawful authority' of England.

You posted, "To this day people argue over the Phrase, "All men are created equal" in the hopes that it would say something about slavery or the social classes but it was nothing more or less than a "kick in the crotch" to a king who declared his right to rule was ordained by the Pope and thus by God himself!"

King George III did not believe that his right to rule was ordained by the Pope -- remember England had their own 'pope', the Archbishop of Canterbury. *England was Protestant at this time -- not Catholic.

The phrase 'all men are created equal' was the height of hypocrisy -- obviously not true when many of the founding fathers were slave owners. *Were the Negroes treated as having been created equal? *How about the native American Indians? *Women? *How about those who didn't own land -- did they have the same 'rights'?

You posted, "John Handcock signed the Declaration first and it is quite apparent that he supported it's ideals.
But he was also a member (in fact founder) of the Son's of Liberty who tortured anyone who spoke out against his ideals by placing tar and feathers on them and hanging them to die so often in the town square that to this day the site is preserved as the "liberty Tree."

Here's a site about the Sons of Liberty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

John Hanncock was one of the many members of the Sons of Liberty, but I don't believe that he was 'the founder'.

While it's true that 'patriots' tarred and feathered certain people it wasn't done for the purpose of torture. *It was to make a public example of them.

I'm not aware of anyone being tarred and feathered and then hung in the town square to die. Tax collectors were hung under the Liberty Tree in effigy, but not the actual bodies of the tax collectors.

Here's a site that gives historical facts about the 'liberty tree':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Tree

[wax]

I can not believe that I missed this post for so very long: Yes absolutely... the "Pope" should be replaced by the "Church" at any given point and well... we should all "wiki" when possible I guess.

[MissouriFree]

Actually it was Samuel Adams who was the predominant founder of the Sons of Liberty with much support and advice from James Otis.

[GoodDaughter]

I have to say something here.... I am a bit dismayed by how some people lack an understanding of history. Not trying to be mean or hateful, just saying....

I am certainly no expert on the history of many other countries, but to be this unlearned about the history of our own nation.... :-/

[333]

Peace,

In those moments... consider the source of ones gnosis.

I believe the last time it would be possible for any one human to know and understand all there was about the world was around 1480 ce.

333