shotbanner.jpeg

July 04, 2005

Independence Day

Give or take the usual fudge factor for historical apocrypha, it was 229 years ago that 56 delegates signed the Declaration of Independence, committing our nation to a long, vicious war against the world's most powerful nation, with an aim toward an independence that must have seemed light years away, and with the aim of doing something completely new - creating a nation based on ideals rather than ethnicity or language or historical accident.

The consequences of the signing were dire for some of the signers.

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
It's easy to romanticize the past. And yet I wonder, when looking at the likes of Patrick Leahy and Nancy Pelosi, if the national gene pool hasn't shallowed to the point where we could ever do the same thing, take the same kind of risks as a people as our anscestors did.

I have little worry, of course, about the American people; it's what passes for our ruling class (and the chattering classes that follow them) that worries me.

Here's the whole thing. It deserves a good annual read:

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

John Hancock
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton

Samual Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Posted by Mitch at July 4, 2005 08:05 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Nice. But on a technical note, aside from the odd indentation issue, one of the links was biffed. Just thought you'd like to know.

Happy Independence Day!

Posted by: aodhan at July 4, 2005 10:12 AM

Most young people seem to know who Samual Adams is, for some reason.

Posted by: RBMN at July 4, 2005 10:22 AM

Mitch,
I suggest that you check out "http://www.massnews.com/past-issues/other/8-aug/augja2.htm
for some factual info on the myths concerning the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Much of the story you quote is purely myth.

Posted by: Bruce Brooks at July 4, 2005 10:24 AM

Also, check out "wealth4freedom.com/wisdom/fate/htm" for more factual information about the signers. More myths debunked.

Rush Limbaugh, among others, claims the authenticity of the article that he says his father wrote. Makes me wonder about the authenticity and reliability of other of his sources.

Posted by: Bruce Brooks at July 4, 2005 10:33 AM

Bruce, the functional link is at:

http://wealth4freedom.com/wisdom/fate.htm

BTW, Mitch, Today is Monday. You said you would have those push polling arguments to me by now.

I'm still waiting.

If you'd like, you can publically acknowledge that you're wrong, post a retraction and I'll let you off the hook.

Anywho, hope you have a good 4th. Stay safe.

Posted by: Dan at July 4, 2005 11:08 AM

Bruce,

I'm also told King Arthur is also fictional, and yet Britons still treasure the story - because it represents as allegory stories from their past. Ditto the legend of Roland, the stories of Nevskii, the legends of Romulus and Remus, and on and on. They are not strictly history, but they encapsulate parts of their cultures' histories anyway. To translate into Democrat terms, they're "Fake but accurate".

Even IF the stories I posted depart from strict history, they represent the sacrifices that so many other Americans made to establish this nation. Truth? Myth? They serve the same purpose to the culture at large.

Dan:

Get over yourself. It's the weekend. I'm spending time with my family.

"Off the hook?" You have a hook? Here I thought you were an ineffective, dyspeptic little obsessive crank, and now I find out you have a "hook". Who knew.

I'll respond when I'm good and ready. Don't like it? Go sit with Eva and fulminate for a while. Or perhaps learn to write, and start your own blog. cranks need an outlet, too.

Maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow, maybe Thursday. Whenever it happens, it'll do the job.

Posted by: mitch at July 4, 2005 11:20 AM

Mitch,

"I'll respond when I'm good and ready."

In other words, you'll respond when your buddies at NARN and Hugh have a chance to look at the challenge and help you put together a response.

Posted by: Dan at July 4, 2005 05:12 PM

Mitch,

As for starting my own blog...? Maybe I will... Are there any rules about using other peoples blogs for material? I mean, you and Swiftee provide me with some great material and I wouldn't want to violate any codes of conduct...

Posted by: Dan at July 4, 2005 05:15 PM

My buddies at the NARN? My, but you have an active fantasy life. The blog is all my own.

Do a Google search for fair use.

I've been blogging for 3.5 years. I've heard plenty of people say they were going to start a blog and show me how it's done. I'm still here. They're all gone - at least, the ones that actually tried it.

Posted by: mitch at July 4, 2005 05:34 PM

"My buddies at the NARN?... The blog is all my own."

Mitch, That would be what is commonly referred to as a non-sequitor.


Posted by: Dan at July 4, 2005 11:28 PM

You said Mitch'd be getting help. He responded - the blog is his own.

Dan, you're what's commonly known as a dickless little fucktard who says things from the safety of his computer that he'd never say in person.

Posted by: Josh at July 4, 2005 11:34 PM

Josh,

Does your mommy know you use that kind of language?

You might do well to see someone about that temper of yours Joshy.

Posted by: Dan at July 4, 2005 11:48 PM

Say Mitch...I noticed you haven't commented on Karl Rove. I was just really hoping to see someone try and justify treason as being for the good of the country.

Or are you just acting like FOX, and fervently hoping that if you don't mention it, then it didn't actually happen?

Posted by: Liberty at July 5, 2005 12:36 AM

"Liberty",

Wow. He's been convicted of treason already? Who knew?

Because so far the only person claiming it's Rove is Larry O'Donnell.

Q: How can you tell Larry O'Donnell is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

Get back to me if a reliable witness puts Rove anywhere near the case.

Posted by: mitch at July 5, 2005 12:47 AM

Oh please Mitch.

Let's call a spade a spade here. Everyone with half a brain KNEW that it was someone high up in the Bush administration that outed that agent. And, in the spirit of fairness, I'll concede that 8 years ago, the Clinton administration would have probably done the same thing.

But you and I both know that someone could show you VIDEOTAPE of Rove leaking the agent's identity, and you still wouldn't believe it.

Q: How do you know that the Right has been caught in a scandal?
A: They're plugging their ears, closing their eyes, and screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!"

Love always,

Liberty

PS: Yes, the Left reacts the same way. But I'm not pissed off about one of THEIR scandals right now.

Posted by: Liberty at July 5, 2005 03:08 AM

"But you and I both know that someone could show you VIDEOTAPE of Rove leaking the agent's identity, and you still wouldn't believe it."

And it's there you're wrong.

Posted by: mitch at July 5, 2005 06:30 AM

Mitch, I keep getting unable to post error messages due to "questionale content". That didn't start until after I challenged you to prove your push polling comment.

I really thought you had more cajones than that. Guess not.

Posted by: Dan at July 5, 2005 07:14 AM

Don't flatter yourself, Dan. There's been some trouble with my spam-comment blocking software.

Could you please be a bit more specific and tell me what the error message says is getting blocked?

And it's "cojones".

Posted by: mitch at July 5, 2005 07:17 AM

Re: Karl Rove.

Are you actually trying to claim that members of the media tried to shield Karl Rove during the 2004 elections? That they knew he'd been the source of the Plame leak, but decided not to tell in order to protect him, and his boss, over some sort of ethical consideration? That they wouldn't burn him in a New York Minute in order to hurt the Bush election campaign?

This beggers belief.

However, if he's broken the law (that's a big IF, by the way) and it can be proven, then expect the Right to demand his head. And it takes more than the accusations and fevered imaginings at DU and elsewhere to prove something like this in this country, for the time being at any rate.

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at July 5, 2005 08:24 AM

Are you trying to convince me that Romulus really wasn't suckled by a wolf? What a letdown. Next you will probably try to convince me that John Wayne really wasn't at the Battle of the Alamo.

Seriously, The myths held so closely by various groups and civilizations do serve a purpose, but they developed during a vasly different time - an uneducated populace, oral renditions undoubtedly embellished in the retelling, and heroic deeds that may have been worthy of the embellishment. But they were, and still are, recognized as myths.

Today, however, we are faced with the same sort of embellishment of reality in a world that enables the spread of myth far more quickly and with less noble motives. Your Democratic "fake but accurate" slam is in no way appropriate in this particular discussion since it is both fake and inaccurate that the founder's fate was as has been far too widely circulated.

One other point - our founders were extremely progressive and liberal. It does them a great disservice to cast them as conservative since had they been so, we would still be shouting "Long live the King".

Posted by: Bruce Brooks at July 5, 2005 11:20 AM

I'm going to have to read through the bit you posted in response; with parts of it, I'm having some sniff test trouble.

But moving on...

"One other point - our founders were extremely progressive and liberal. It does them a great disservice to cast them as conservative since had they been so, we would still be shouting "Long live the King".

This, on the other hand, is worth an entire post on its own.

Stay tuned.

Posted by: mitch at July 5, 2005 11:45 AM

Are you suggesting teaching King Arthur in history classes, Mitch? Do you understand the distinction between myth and history?

Will you be parroting David Barton's fabricated founding father quotes about a "Christian nation" next?

Posted by: Eva Young at July 5, 2005 11:18 PM

Eva,

Bite me. Do you understand the difference between hyperbole and an academic treatise? (For that matter - the arthurian legends are an integral part of British cultural history; they are perfectly legitimate subject. I know - what would I, a mere English major, know about that?)

But while we're on the subject of myths - will you be continuing to tell people that your silly photo "proves" Bachmann was "spying" on your little rally?

Silly me. Of course you will. So don't even dare get holier-than-thou about "mythology".

Quick, Eva - make sure you copy and paste the entire thread to your blog!

Posted by: mitch at July 6, 2005 10:57 AM

This is a good laugh and I respond here:

http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/07/does-blogger-berg-understand.html

On the Bachmann in the Bushes deal, are you still claiming that the photo isn't clear that Bachmann was facing the rally crowd?

I'm not a history or an English major - but I recall high school history and English classes - and I remember learning greek and roman mythology in English class. I don't recall learning myths in history class.

Did you see the Chronicles of NARN-ia?

http://monkeysponge.blogspot.com/2005/07/chronicles-of-narn-ia.html

Posted by: Eva Young at July 6, 2005 11:46 PM

"On the Bachmann in the Bushes deal, are you still claiming that the photo isn't clear that Bachmann was facing the rally crowd?"

I'm saying, flat out, that you're lying about the "spying" bit. Whether she's facing the crowd or not, you're imparting motive completely without evidence.

Posted by: mitch at July 7, 2005 06:30 AM

and yes, I read "Smartie's" review.

He's wrong about everything, but I read it.

Posted by: mitch at July 7, 2005 06:41 AM

Mitch, I just thought I'd write to say "stay on it".

I live in Stillwater. Some of the 'consitutents' Eve Young keeps showing out on her blog are thought of as wackoes around town. I've seen the eyes rolling when they open their mouths. If Eve Young wants to base her case on those people, then Michele is probably pretty safe at least in Stillwater. I worry that people outside the Stillwater area might actually believe some of the crap she's printing.

Eve Young herself is a hysterical little person.

I'd personally hope that Phil Krinkie wins the District 6 nomination and seat. I don't want to lose Michele in the Senate! But the Dump Bachmann blog is so rotten that I really would like everyone who cares about the truth to keep the heat on people like Eve.

Posted by: Jen at July 7, 2005 08:11 AM

Spying? Well she's peering from behind the Bushes and observing the rally. From the Strib:

"I had high heels on and I just couldn't stand anymore," Bachmann said. "I was not in the bushes."

She said she had ventured out, against Lindquist's advice, to check a tip that "I was going to be a focus of the rally." Sure enough, she found, "it was fairly personal," including a sign reading "Go to hell, Michele."

EY: Yes, Bachmann herself said she wanted to view what was going on at the rally.

Posted by: Eva Young at July 7, 2005 08:35 PM

This thread seems to have diverted from the original subject - namely the myth of the founders' fates being presented as truth. There is a difference between cultural myths and history. Both are valuable but the difference should be recognizable.

Posted by: Bruce Brooks at July 13, 2005 04:04 PM

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Dennis at May 8, 2006 11:39 AM

Good design!
http://fmnvokra.com/wvrd/rncd.html | http://kmcibspp.com/ezcv/vteh.html

Posted by: Eric at May 8, 2006 11:41 AM

sex zoo woman zoophilia free zoo sex stories

Posted by: Uvqenqutd at October 30, 2006 12:21 AM

mature interracial xxx mature panty

Posted by: Uwoovg at October 30, 2006 01:59 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi