Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 26 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 12:25:06 |
Calls: | 491 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 1,077 |
Messages: | 68,462 |
Posted today: | 2 |
https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea
Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats >against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing
the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
President Barack Obama to account.
In fact, whether itÆs the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American >Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of >Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; itÆs a remarkable >document that marks the official birth of America.
Most national origin stories are about a great manùsometimes with divine >authorityùwho creates a new country in a specific land for a particular >bloodline. OneÆs nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.
What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent
of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.
The founders did not take the right to break ties with the British
Empire lightly. Revolution is serious business and should not be done
for trivial reasons. Go to the Declaration and you find that most of the >complaints listed against King George III are about his interference
with local and state legislatures and courts. Yes, thereÆs all the stuff
we remember from middle school too, like taxation without
representation, quartering an army in private homes during peacetime,
and my favorite: ôHe has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt
our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.ö But that last one,
which alone would seem to be enough to justify ôdissolv[ing] the
political bands which have connectedö the young Americans to the British >Empire, is the 24th of 27 complaints against the king. The bulk of the >DeclarationÆs bill of particulars are about depriving Americans of
rights and democratic institutions that the vast majority of the world
at the time did not know or have reason to believe their government owed
to them.
And in this respect, the Declaration of Independence was dynamite. It
was not only a statement of a self-evident truth about the nature of
human beings and society; it was an assertion that everyone is entitled
to these rights. And this idea has resonated throughout the last two and
a half centuries. It has served at home as a promissory note, in the
words of Martin Luther King Jr. And it has inspired revolutions and >uprisings all over the world. It is what makes America exceptional. The >Declaration of Independence, the idea of America, in this sense is much >larger than the charter of our nation.
Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders did not discover a new
political insight; they were tinkering with the political philosophy of >their era. But they were also putting these ideas into action. The
English Bill of Rights secured a new contract between Parliament and
King, a notable accomplishment for sure. The Declaration, though, went >further. The rights it enumerates are inalienable and their truth is >self-evident. They are not based in English tradition; they are based in >human nature. They are not negotiable, and these rights apply to everyone.
That is the intellectual context of the Declaration. But there is also
an important political context. What is often overlooked in the studies
of the American Revolution is that even in 1775, when Massachusetts was
in rebellion and Boston was under siege, the Continental Congress still
held out hope to negotiate a new agreement with King George III. And
here is a great irony of the American Revolution. King George had
already decided by 1774 to treat the patriots as traitors and rebels. He >knew before the Founding Fathers themselves that their agenda was >revolution. Had the king not been so stubborn, there is a good chance
that New York and Pennsylvania would have continued to push for what
they called a middle way. But the king wouldnÆt budge, so even the
Quaker pacifists of Philadelphia ended up endorsing revolution.
Allow me to anticipate an objection thus far. As you may have noticed, I >have only lightly touched on AmericaÆs original sin: slavery. And yet
even though it was debated hotly at the Constitutional Convention, the >practice was not abolished until nearly a century after the Declaration
of Independence. Women and landless whitesùlet alone the native
tribesùwere not afforded the inalienable rights and equality promised by
our national charter. In this respect, one could argue that the document
was nothing more than marketing material for a revolution staged by a
bunch of white elites who didnÆt want to pay their taxes. They just
dressed up their economic grievances in flowery prose. This is the
standard view these days from what might be called the post-American
left. But here is what I think they get wrong. LetÆs look at JeffersonÆs >original draft of the declaration:
"He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a >distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them
into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their >transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel >powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain, he has >prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to >prohibit or restrain an execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of >horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting
those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty
of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also >obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the
liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit
against the lives of another."
Talk about contradictions. In this section of the document, Jefferson is >attacking the English king for imposing the slave trade on the colonies
and preventing legislatures from ending what he calls an ôexecrable >commerce,ö and also for inciting these slaves to rise up against their >masters. But even here, we can see that Jefferson acknowledges that the >slaves are human beings who have the same inalienable rights as their >masters. The language did not make it into the Declaration because the >Southern delegates did not see things the way Jefferson, their fellow >Southerner, did. All of that said, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison,
all slave owners at the end of their lives, acknowledged that eventually
the young republic would have to end the practice of slavery.
But the big flaw in the leftÆs argument about the Declaration is its
failure to appreciate how this document was a standard by which
Americans, who were deprived of their rights, could hold their country
to account and obtain them. This was the playbook for the abolitionists
of the 19th century and the civil rights movement of the 20th century.
This was how the suffragettes argued for the right of women to vote. So
in this respect, the Declaration is a kind of engine of American
progress. Because the rights enumerated are self-evident truths, there
is no appeal to celestial, ethnic, or government authority. Just
consider the Declaration of Sentiments that emerged from the Seneca
Falls Convention, the first meeting of American women to organize for
voting rights. ItÆs the Declaration with one important edit.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
We can also look at the righteous fury of Frederick Douglass in his July
4, 1852 address. Here he turns our national identity on itself.
"Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican
religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of
liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while
the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great >political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the >enslavement of three millions of your countrymen."
In the 19th century, Douglass and the other abolitionists amplified the >contradictions of a republic whose charter asserted the equality of all >people and their rights to live in freedom while allowing the practice
of chattel slavery. That contradiction, identified by Jefferson himself, >could not hold. It was left for Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president,
to resolve through the Civil War. Lincoln argued that his decision to >emancipate the slaves was to fulfill the promise of the Declaration.
ItÆs right there in the opening sentence of the Gettysburg Address.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the >proposition that all men are created equal.
Though clearly different, the French Revolution is impossible to imagine >without the American Revolution that preceded it, and the Declaration--
that let the liberty cat out of the bag. And boy, did the cat run.
Because after 1789, the Declaration really began to go viral. There is
the Haitian Revolution, which began in 1791. Seven years after it ended
in 1804, Venezuela, under Sim≤n Boløvar, declared independence from
Spain. By 1817, the European powers had begun to notice. John Quincy
Adams that year, from his post as the American minister in England,
observed in a letter to his father John Adams:
The universal feeling of Europe in witnessing the gigantic growth
of our population and power is that we shall, if united, become a very >dangerous member of the society of nations.
The power of the DeclarationÆs ideas continued to spread. Our DNA is all >over the independence movements of the twentieth century. Even Ho Chi
Minh opened VietnamÆs own declaration in 1945 by quoting directly from >JeffersonÆs famous second paragraph. It resurfaced in Israel, whose 1948 >Declaration of Independence echoes the American one in both structure
and spirit.
Across continents and centuries, the DeclarationÆs assertion of
universal liberty continues to be one of the most contagious ideas in >political history. Even during the Cold War, when so much anti-colonial >ferment was motivated by the Russian Revolution and the ideas of Marx
and Engels, rooted in materialist theories of historical inevitability,
the beacon of our national charter lit the way for freedom fighters.
Nelson Mandela, whose African National Congress was aligned with the
Soviet Union during apartheid, sang a hymn of praise to the Declaration >before the U.S. Congress in 1990. And my hope is that we will see the
power of the Declaration today inspire a new generation of revolutionary >patriots fighting for freedom in Iran as their regime reels from the >humiliation of the 12-day war.
This American scripture is something all of us should still revere.
Because we are closer to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence
today than we were in 1776. Its words inspired Lincoln, Douglas, King,
the suffragettes, and countless other Americans to demand that we live
up to its ideals. That is not a criticism of the Declaration but a
tribute to its power. This is why I reject the fashionable theory today
that America was founded in 1619ùa century before any of its founders
were bornùand the date the first African slaves, kidnapped by Portugal,
were sent to the British colony of Virginia. In the end the spirit of
1776 defeated the spirit of 1619 in the Civil War, and later in the
civil rights movement.
When asked at the Constitutional Convention what kind of government this
new United States would adopt, Ben Franklin famously responded, ôA
republic, if you can keep it.ö That quote is usually dusted off as a
kind of warning, but it is also a source of hope. If ôyouö can keep it; >already the republic isnÆt somebody elseÆs business but everyoneÆs. How
you feel about that depends on how you feel about your fellow citizens,
and perhaps even your fellow human beings. Though there are always
plenty of reasons to worry for the future, in the end IÆm an optimist.
Who would have thought that a government founded in revolution, whose >charter asserts the right to shake off the chains of tyrants, would last
250 years? Will we last another two and a half centuries? I donÆt know
the answer, but we have a fighting chance so long as we never lose sight
of the indelible truths contained in the Declaration of Independence.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:10:31 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea
Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats
against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing
the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
President Barack Obama to account.
In fact, whether it’s the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American
Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of
Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; it’s a remarkable
document that marks the official birth of America.
Most national origin stories are about a great man—sometimes with divine >> authority—who creates a new country in a specific land for a particular
bloodline. One’s nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.
What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent
of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.
Yes, but half the people is not sufficient. To bad that when
proselytizers say people, they mean people who agree with me of
whatever proportion.
On 7/4/2025 9:15 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:10:31 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:Someone should look up Robert's Rules of Order.
https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea
Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats
against the bold prerogatives assumed by President Donald Trump, echoing >>> the Tea Party, the popular movement that emerged in 2009 to hold
President Barack Obama to account.
In fact, whether itÆs the Black Panthers, the Daughters of the American
Revolution, or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warning about The Imperial
Presidency, Americans of all creeds and passions tend to voice their
protest of the government in the language of the Declaration of
Independence, even in 2025. This is understandable; itÆs a remarkable
document that marks the official birth of America.
Most national origin stories are about a great manùsometimes with divine >>> authorityùwho creates a new country in a specific land for a particular
bloodline. OneÆs nationality was determined by blood and soil, and
people lived according to the whims of their rulers. America, on the
other hand, was founded on an idea. And what an idea it was.
What the founders said in the Declaration was that the government does
not derive its power from the heavens or the sword, but from the consent >>> of the people it governs. And the people have a God-given right to
dissolve the government when it violates their God-given rights.
Yes, but half the people is not sufficient. To bad that when
proselytizers say people, they mean people who agree with me of
whatever proportion.
Apparently, Majority rule is the most common social choice rule
worldwide, being heavily used in deliberative assemblies for dichotomous >decisions, e.g. whether or not to pass a bill.
It is one of the basic rules of parliamentary procedure. However, keep
in mind that the US does not have direct voting.
Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by thoseThanks. A great resource.
that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.
For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/
Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.
For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/
My opinions,--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led
to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
person's mind that helped form this country.
It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around the world.
For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on what life there is like and what their lives are like..
Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.
When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global politics and so much more.
Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!
Thank you,
David
Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few years of its existance.
For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just that.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/
My opinions,--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led
to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
person's mind that helped form this country.
It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around the world.
For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on what life there is like and what their lives are like..
Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.
When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global politics and so much more.
Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!
Thank you,
David
On Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20:37 PM EDT, "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA
government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few >> years of its existance.
For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, >> refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I
also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just >> that.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/
Thanks. I think I'll take another look at C.S. Lewis on Christianity
My opinions,
I have not viewed all these courses but they served as an interesting
discussion to prompt me to dig out my own copy of said papers that were
distributed in 1976 during the 200 year anniversary. We had about seven
years of discussions in school and in public detailing the events that led >> to the formulation of this country and its governing documents. The papers >> themselves can easily be found online and provide insight into each
person's mind that helped form this country.
It is a shame that so many here do not understand how other governments
function and how ours functions. Such topics are taught in counties around >> the world.
For anyone wanting to critisize the USA please visit a few other countries >> and visit with the people outside their vacation hubs to get background on >> what life there is like and what their lives are like..
Likewise if you have not visited a majority of other states please do so
and talk to the people there. Their history is important too.
When you encounter visitors from other parts of the world please talk with >> them for as long as you can. Get their views from their part of the world. >> Then we can start to have meaningful discussions together about global
politics and so much more.
Enjoy what you have and truely appreciate it!
Thank you,
David
On Jul 4, 2025 at 5:03:15 PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20:37 PM EDT, "David LaRue" <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> >> wrote:
Please read the Federalist Papers to get a grounding in why the USA
government is structured the way it is. Those are discussions by those
that created the government and subsequently modified it over the first few >>> years of its existance.
For discussions of why those matter, as a short introduction to the issue, >>> refer to the public courses taught by Larry Arnn at Hillsdale College. I >>> also see that they have a new course titled The Federalist if you want just >>> that.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/
Thanks. I think I'll take another look at C.S. Lewis on Christianity
Opon reflection, I think I will pass
Just one review amongst most says:The jury is out. Half way through the first episode
" Pat Sajak is their board chairman, a game show host. The chairman of Amway is the vice chair, an MLM organization run by ultra religious fundamentalists.
The board is a who's who of right wing power brokers in the state. It's about as legitimate a university as PragerU at this point, but with political ambition and power."
Chemistry should be pretty safe though :)
https://www.thefp.com/p/america-has-always-been-a-dangerous-idea
Last month there was a spate of protests across America united by a
two-word slogan: No Kings. This was the rallying cry of the Democrats