An open letter to the king
By Thomas Jefferson of Charlottesville, Virginia. Jefferson is an attorney, activist, and scientist. This guest column was co-signed by a large number of fellow activists.
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 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 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 of 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 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 & 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 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 attention to our Brittish 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.
Discuss.
|
July 04, 2006
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 4, '06
this jefferson fellow seems to believe in liberty. me, too. i hope to see more of this guy's influence in our national politics soon! i particularly like his interest in this "trial by jury" thing. novel!
Jul 4, '06
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Ever wonder what Minnis and Scott think of this?
Too bad more present day communications aren't this eloquent.
Jul 4, '06
We look back on the revolutionary leaders as foresighted, but at the time they represented anything but conventional wisdom. The established commercial leaders in the colonies were Tories. Conventional people in cities like New York mostly supported the crown. The revolutionary leaders were people prepared to take a huge risk and place their lives and fortunes on in the hands of a quite unlikely endeavor.
Any objective evaluation of the Declaration of Independence would describe it as vitriolic propaganda. As Saul Alinksy pointed out, there is no mention of the protection of British troops from the native american tribes and the French or any of the other benefits that came from being part of the British Empire The declaration is a call to arms. I doubt today there are very many Americans who would respond to that call. But in 1776 the colonies were populated by people who had already taken the risk of leaving the comforts of civilized europe for the uncertainty of making a new life in America. How many people today would respond to "Give me Liberty of give me death"? Very few, we have little use of liberty, so little that the miniscule threat of Osama bin Laden has a large number of Americans prepared to sacrifice what little liberty they still have if it will only make them safe.
Lets try to remember, at least on this day we are celebrating a revolution lead by revolutionaries, not moderates wedded to convention.
Jul 4, '06
How many people today would respond to "Give me Liberty of give me death"? ........Lets try to remember, at least on this day we are celebrating a revolution lead by revolutionaries, not moderates wedded to convention.
Good point, Ross.
And on an equally fundamental point of freedom, how many advocates for incumbents think they can get away with infringements like "this person won the last election, how dare you question their right to be re-elected without answering questions from the general public"?
Or even worse, "You voted for this person once, therefore you have no right to consider voting for someone else this time".
Some politicians forget that election years are like job interviews, and voters have the right to keep or throw out incumbents (if they meet or hear from friends of a credible challenger) ---just as employers have the right to tell someone they interviewed "glad to have a chance to meet and talk with you, but we interviewed someone else who we believe to be a stronger candidate for the job and offered the job to that person".
Elected office is not an entitlement. And just because a majority in a particular election voted for a measure (or a statewide official, or members of a legislative majority) that doesn't mean all individual voters must put their minds in neutral and never express a dissenting opinion. Today we celebrate a holiday honoring dissent.
Jul 4, '06
Today we celebrate a holiday honoring dissent.
More accurately we honor successful dissent. "Treason never prospers. For if it prospers, none dare call it treason."
Jul 4, '06
If Jefferson were alive today, I believe he would be more surprised by what is "protected" today than by those rights which had been eroded.
10:26 p.m.
Jul 4, '06
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.
The Bush Administration would call this treason and lock up any person or persons who attempted it.
Jul 4, '06
J. W. does not know what Jefferson would think of today's political scene; to wit:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812
Jul 5, '06
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance."
hmm...sounds strangly familiar
Jul 5, '06
It has always bothered me that we, as americans, celebrate this day as our independence day. When in fact, nothing of consequence happened. The war had been joined for over 15 months since Lexington and Concord, and wouldn't end for another 7 years (April 1783, actually Sept 3 when the treaty was signed). The Declaration was signed two days earlier, and was merely read on this day. So why do we pick a totally inconsequential day in history to mark our independence?
And, to be truthful, the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, as the United States was not a country in 1776. Although Senator Robert Byrd is long past his due date, he had an excellent point in sponsoring legislation to make Sept. 17th a day of recognition. Although, if he had his faculties he might have suggested June 21st. (1788.....shortly before he was born). That's when our actual legally binding document went into effect. So if we're going to speak truth to dictators we might as well use something that has force of law (although the current power brokers would find little to quible about in the original Constitution)
And I have one more bone to pick......in the movie "National Treasure" they make a big deal out of the clue "55 men signing" which leads our hero Nicholas Cage to conclude that the treasure map is on the back of the DofI....when in fact ,56 men signed it.....go ahead. count.
Leave it to Disney to screw up history. July 4th is a bogus date. But for the fact that three of the founding fathers died on this date (jefferson, adams, madison) it would have no real significance at all. I celebrate Sept 3rd. I'd encourage all of you to do the same.
Jul 5, '06
That's lousy history.
the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document,
So what? I doubt that fact would have saved the signer's necks if they had lost. The American Revolution wasn't a legal process. Shooting British solidiers from behind trees wasn't legal either.
nothing of consequence happened. The Declaration was signed two days earlier, and was merely read on this day.
The significance of the Declaration of Independence is as a public "declaration" of the intentions of the colonists . Obviously a lot of these folks had stated their support for independence privately long before then. It is irrelevant that they all agreed two days earlier on the text of the public declaration to be made on July 4th. Its like saying a marriage anniversary isn't significant since people agreed to get married long before the day they exchanged their vows in public.
Jul 5, '06
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
9:25 a.m.
Jul 5, '06
I'd like to thank Kari for this inspired post. When Jefferson and his cohorts drafted up this document--essentially a finger to the English empire--they were taking a huge risk. What impudence! Who were these punks in the hinterland to DARE raise a finger to oppose His Majesty?
There's a lot of speculation about what Jefferson would say/do/believe in the current age (and as a testament to his genius, nearly every political stripe claims he'd support their words/deeds/values), and it's impossible to know. I would like to think, though, that he might have used a blog to get his message out. Every generation moistens its connection to the founders' irreverence, and the next revolutionaries are probably on the internet somewhere, fomenting rebellion against tyranny.
Nice post.
Jul 5, '06
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to show that is true only if the "militia" has an air force, tanks and heavy artillery. Against a modern army, it appears a miltia, no matter how well-organized, is pretty much useless.
Jul 5, '06
Ross Williams: For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to show that is true only if the "militia" has an air force, tanks and heavy artillery. Against a modern army, it appears a miltia, no matter how well-organized, is pretty much useless. JK:Ross,good argument for Scotus modernizing the 2nd amendment like they have done for freedom of the press as technoligy advanced from wooden presses to Radio, TV etc.
Thanks JK
Jul 5, '06
Jeff -- I think we all know what Thomas Jefferson would say if he were alive today:
"Help! Somebody get me out of this box!"
(With immense respect to a philosophical giant who helped earn the right to poke fun at our leaders and forebearers.)
Jul 5, '06
I really love this topic. I think our declaration is one of the best documents in the history of human kind.
But how fast we re-write history. Ross Williams writes -
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to show that is true only if the "militia" has an air force, tanks and heavy artillery. Against a modern army, it appears a miltia, no matter how well-organized, is pretty much useless."
Ever hear of the Viet Cong? Sure, at the end after we were beat and pulled out the North brought in the tanks, but up to then it was a clear mis-match against our "modern" army. Don't under estimate the power of motivated people.
Jul 6, '06
Ever hear of the Viet Cong? Sure, at the end after we were beat and pulled out the North brought in the tanks,
Uh, about those tanks...
Aside from it being ancient history, the Viet Cong was never really a citizen militia and was pretty much exhausted as a military force after Tet in 1968. The rest of the war was fought largely by a well-organized regular army which, as you note, ended the war when its armored forces captured Saigon. It seems more proof of my point than a contradiction and the advantage has shifted a long way toward the regular forces in the interim.
The idea that Americans are going to defend their liberty with hunting rifles, shotguns and saturday night specials is ludicrous.
Jul 10, '06
It will no doubt be noted as significant that, in the history of the Republic, that this was not given legal status. More significant that the Congress sees fit to put a code of behavior towards the flag into law, but not the Declaration. Just imagine if you could appeal to the Supreme Court that some behavior of the State violated your right to the pursuit of happiness? Imagine a President suspending habeas corpus if the statement "inalienable right" were in law.
I think it's like the "British Constitution". There isn't one, but British constitutional experts argue that they have a number of documents that, when taken together, are a virtual constitutional charter of government. Fine point, but bottom line, you don't have a constitution. Bottom line, the Declaration and the other colonial declarations are inspirational, guiding principles, but can be discarded when they do not suit the government.
All that would be fine real politik</I, but not accepting that premise was what the revolution was about, was it not?
<hr/>