Declaration of Independence question

[Slartibartfast]

Would the declaration of independence have been just as valuable if the founders had simple wrote to the king "**** you guys, we want our own country" (in the popular dialect of the time of course) and left out the justification brought about by the idea of natural rights? Would the revolutionary war and the founding of the country been as justified?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Would the declaration of independence have been just as valuable if the founders had simple wrote to the king "**** you guys, we want our own country" and left out the justification brought about by the idea of natural rights?

I think it would of been pretty "action hero" cool but not as eloquent.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think it would of been pretty "action hero" cool but not as eloquent.

Yes, it would be certainly less eloquent. But would the revolutionary war been as justified? (added it to the OP to clarify my question)

 

[obvious Child]

Yes, it would be certainly less eloquent. But would the revolutionary war been as justified? (added it to the OP to clarify my question)

Probably. Take out the flowery language and the reasons for revolution were still very much there. Try it this way, take out the list of why the King sucks and is there justification for the war? The justification lies in the right to self governor and of the atrocities the King has committed.

 

[soccerboy22]

To the people that supported the Revolutionary War, probably.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Probably. Take out the flowery language and the reasons for revolution were still very much there. Try it this way, take out the list of why the King sucks and is there justification for the war? The justification lies in the right to self governor and of the atrocities the King has committed.

I am of the same opinion. People take what they want and only society exists to oppose them. The interplay between those two forces is what creates our idea of rights. The people were ready for change and they had enough force to win. I don't think the philosophizing had much effect on it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yes, it would be certainly less eloquent. But would the revolutionary war been as justified? (added it to the OP to clarify my question)

War can be justified for practically any reason.
That doesn't mean, I always agree with it.

Depends on each individual's moral values.

 

[expandmymind]

Would the declaration of independence have been just as valuable if the founders had simple wrote to the king "**** you guys, we want our own country" (in the popular dialect of the time of course) and left out the justification brought about by the idea of natural rights?

The Declaration of Independence was based largely on the Scottish one (allegedly - it was the only one existing beforehand, except the Dutch). Both written to escape the Crown. My guess, especially considering how many key signatories were Scottish, is that they would have recalled the key elements when creating the second Declaration of Independence from the same Crown and that it would have to have been a lot more detailed than you suggest.

No need to thank us Scots for setting the precedent for you

So to answer your question, it was a legal document and therefore would have to have been a bit more detailed than ' F-U'. A document like that wouldn't have been a very solid base, not to mention it probably wouldn't have been recognised by other countries around the world.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We started the Revolution and won because we were powerful enough to do it; power comes from the barrel of a gun. Justification only matters after the fact.

 

[rathi]

We started the Revolution and won because we were powerful enough to do it; power comes from the barrel of a gun. Justification only matters after the fact.

I fully agree, but the after the fact part is important. The U.S. has managed to avoid coups and power struggles primarily because belief in democratic tradition is very strong. Symbols have can have enormous influence even if they are essentially toothless by themselves.

 

[Technocratic]

Well, while some of the complaints were real, the DoI was largely a propaganda document in the form of a lawyer's brief. It had some misleading elements and exaggerated issues.

And it tries to paint Americans in the best light, glossing over the myriad of things Americans did in the first place to cause the problems.

But, the flowery language is interesting, because most of the countries to which it was directed were...not liberal republics, anyway. The function of the Document was to entice foreign governments to support the United States, and it doesn't even seem intuitive to appeal to natural rights and revolution when your audience is a panel of monarchies opposed to the concept. It was probably useful for gaining popular support in England for the revolution, as well as in other countries, so as to exert pressure on their governments.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The U.S. has managed to avoid coups and power struggles primarily because belief in democratic tradition is very strong.

I'd say we've avoided coups and the kind of blatant power struggles that certain countries are known for primarily because we are rich. Armies may march on full stomachs, but revolutions thrive on hunger.

And our history of avoiding civil strife isn't exactly unblemished, either-- the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, the Thirties and the Sixties and on and on.

 

[UtahBill]

We DID tell the King to "(*&)off, but in a subtle and genteel way. Anybody can be crude while insulting another, it takes talent to be insulting with a bit of class...

 

[rathi]

I'd say we've avoided coups and the kind of blatant power struggles that certain countries are known for primarily because we are rich. Armies may march on full stomachs, but revolutions thrive on hunger.

Look at France. Despite being an extremely wealthy nation, they have had 5 republics in the last 2 centuries. Wealth may be helpful in promoting stability, but it is no guarantee.

And our history of avoiding civil strife isn't exactly unblemished, either-- the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, the Thirties and the Sixties and on and on.

Of course. However, there has never been unrest based on the transfer of power. Even the civil war was based on the concept of leaving the union rather than trying to oust Lincoln. Presidents were kept to 2 term limits for more than a century based on nothing more than tradition.

 

[Chappy]

All that flowery language and philosophy was recounting the reasoning behind the separation of the colonies from their king and tied their actions to the whole historical record of what it meant to be British subjects who from the darkest ages had established a tradition of rule by consent of the governed, a pact made null and void through the arbitrary and capricious actions of the current leadership.

All that flowery language and philosophy wasn't for the British king or his parliament either; it was for the colonists, to crystallize for them precisely what the conflict was about and why it was so necessary that it be conducted at that moment. Stripping out those justifications and traditions would have undermined the cause and doomed the effort to failure. Rarely in history, has such a great cause's destiny depended on the effectiveness of so few words.

 

[spud_meister]

I agree with Mr. Rat, you could have told the king that you didn't like him and he wore women's panties, the fact that you won was all the justification that was needed.

 

[peepnklown]

I guess it depends on what was to become of the colonies after the war and what type of relationship the individual and the state would have. The DOI laid the foundation of natural rights, limited government, the role of government, etc.

 

[molten_dragon]

Yes, it would have been every bit as justified. The whole 'unalienable rights' part was just flowery political rhetoric.