Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

[EdwinWillers]

It was called a declaration for reason and not an assertion. It is a declarative statement meaning that there is no room for error.

Umm, you're still missing the point. And again - to "declare" and to "assert" are virtually synonymous.

I've no issue whatsoever with their choosing the wording they did. Not the point of the OP however.

When we declared ourselves free of the king, we then proved it. Moreover it is a guarantee of freedom so long as we are willing to prove it.

No, we FOUGHT for it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The time has come to declare ourselves independent of this tyrannical government. We have allowed our freedoms to be steadily reduced and removed under the guise of public good and safety. Let us take a portion of the country or form an alliance with any state willing to throw off these shackles and defend liberty.

IMHO we've strayed far away from being a representative republic. While we continue to maintain the democratic process of voting for our politicians, all we're really doing is electing people into a political structure where they're pretty much free to do as they please, irrespective of the people's will who elected them into office. And yes, if not tyrannical, it's certainly a solid basis for tyranny. And when we think upon the list of grievances of those who created the Declaration of Independence, their reasons for declaring, for asserting their right to independence, we must surely realize just how many of those grievances apply to us today.

 

[hado117]

IMHO we've strayed far away from being a representative republic. While we continue to maintain the democratic process of voting for our politicians, all we're really doing is electing people into a political structure where they're pretty much free to do as they please, irrespective of the people's will who elected them into office. And yes, if not tyrannical, it's certainly a solid basis for tyranny. And when we think upon the list of grievances of those who created the Declaration of Independence, their reasons for declaring, for asserting their right to independence, we must surely realize just how many of those grievances apply to us today.

according to the arguments and ideas expressed by the founders, the people should have rebelled long ago.

 

[EdwinWillers]

according to the arguments and ideas expressed by the founders, the people should have rebelled long ago.

Question is, why don't they?

 

[hado117]

Question is, why don't they?

Probably because of a lack of leadership. Their is no group of people who are publicly expressing their grievances. And none that are on the side of the people and the constitution. We must first elect our own officials, a constitutional congress. We must declare the current government null and void . we will need funding possibly from the federal reserve. although they would also fund the enemies of the constitution (our government).

 

[jet57]

Umm, you're still missing the point. And again - to "declare" and to "assert" are virtually synonymous.

I've no issue whatsoever with their choosing the wording they did. Not the point of the OP however.

No, we FOUGHT for it.

Yeah, you're not getting it. The paper was written as a 'declaration', because that's what it was. We 'asserted'; or proved such declaration, by fighting our revolution. The words have different connotations, hence the "Declaration" vs an assertion.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yeah, you're not getting it. The paper was written as a 'declaration', because that's what it was. We 'asserted'; or proved such declaration, by fighting our revolution. The words have different connotations, hence the "Declaration" vs an assertion.

Buy one. I think you can get one in paperback for under $4 most places.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Probably because of a lack of leadership.

/understatement of the century

Goes back to my post #52 above. All we got are politicians, self-serving individuals we *think* we're electing to represent us but who in fact only serve themselves. Pretty much everything a leader is not.

 

[Moot]

Umm, you're still missing the point. And again - to "declare" and to "assert" are virtually synonymous.

I've no issue whatsoever with their choosing the wording they did. Not the point of the OP however.

No, we FOUGHT for it.

The Declaration of Independence was largely plagiarized from John Locke's 1693 treatise, "Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government."

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson: Plagiarism

James Madison later apologized for the plagiarism saying "The object was to assert, not to discover truths."

 

[shrubnose]

I've read it and I noticed that it doesn't say anything about the rights of women and Black slaves.

:lol:

 

[SmartCat]

This line in the Declaration of Independence, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us," was inspired by this passage in the Constitution of South Carolina - March 26, 1776, The British Army has "excited domestic insurrections; proclaimed freedom to servants and slaves, enticed or stolen them from, and armed them against their masters."
The Avalon Project : Constitution of South Carolina - March 26, 1776

In his essay, "TAXATION NO TYRANNY AN ANSWER TO THE RESOLUTIONS AND ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN CONGRESS," Samuel Johnson wrote, "We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties; an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
http://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html

 

[SmartCat]

While we continue to maintain the democratic process of voting for our politicians, all we're really doing is electing people into a political structure where they're pretty much free to do as they please, irrespective of the people's will who elected them into office.

Politicians try to fulfil their campaign promises when they are elected. The problem is that in order to be elected one must make unrealistic promises. In particular, one must promise a growing economy. A growing economy with good jobs for everyone who wants one is probably no longer possible.

Donald Trump is doing that right now. He is promising to "Make America Great Again." If he is elected he will discover what Barack Obama discovered when he was elected: it is easier to run against a bad economy than it is to fix it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The Declaration of Independence was largely plagiarized from John Locke's 1693 treatise, "Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government."

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson: Plagiarism

I'm sorry, but this has what to do with... anything?

James Madison later apologized for the plagiarism saying "The object was to assert, not to discover truths."

And [yet] again - to "declare" and to "assert" are virtually synonymous.

Do you suppose I said, or implied, or otherwise somehow suggested anything about the "discovery" of truths in the Declaration of Independence? Moreover, do you suppose in pointing out plagiarism, which only taints the plagiarizer, that in so doing you are somehow casting a shadow on the value of the material itself (which is clearly Mr. Anesi's goal)?

In point of fact, the assertion/declaration of truths - truths naturally held as givens (because after all, they are truths) is one of, if not THE most important aspect of the Declaration of Independence - the assertion/declaration of truths, truths forgotten or ground under by an oppressive government or worse - a wayward culture.

No one here has argued their novelty, or their originality, as if they were some new concept which ought to reward on their creator deserved accolades, or on their plagiarizer scorn. To do so would be absurd. Worse, to attempt to taint the Declaration of Independence with contempt or disdain as Mr. Anesi does on the basis that the truths therein are "rather conventional 18th century political ideas" or that Jefferson plagiarized them is the height of dishonesty and duplicity - and committing a more sordid and despicable act than the one in their accusation.

 

[Moot]

I'm sorry, but this has what to do with... anything?

It has to do with the reading of the Declaration of Independence. You won't fully understand it unless you understand the philosophy behind it and that means reading Locke and Montesquieu.

And [yet] again - to "declare" and to "assert" are virtually synonymous.

So it seems.

Do you suppose I said, or implied, or otherwise somehow suggested anything about the "discovery" of truths in the Declaration of Independence? Moreover, do you suppose in pointing out plagiarism, which only taints the plagiarizer, that in so doing you are somehow casting a shadow on the value of the material itself (which is clearly Mr. Anesi's goal)?

John Locke was Jefferson's favorite philosopher.

In point of fact, the assertion/declaration of truths - truths naturally held as givens (because after all, they are truths) is one of, if not THE most important aspect of the Declaration of Independence - the assertion/declaration of truths, truths forgotten or ground under by an oppressive government or worse - a wayward culture.

No one here has argued their novelty, or their originality, as if they were some new concept which ought to reward on their creator deserved accolades, or on their plagiarizer scorn. To do so would be absurd. Worse, to attempt to taint the Declaration of Independence with contempt or disdain as Mr. Anesi does on the basis that the truths therein are "rather conventional 18th century political ideas" or that Jefferson plagiarized them is the height of dishonesty and duplicity - and committing a more sordid and despicable act than the one in their accusation.

Some of the founders were embarrassed by the plagiarism. Personally, I don't have a problem with it....Locke had been dead for almost a hundred years before the DoI was written but his philosophy lived on and became the foundation that our country was founded on. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[EdwinWillers]

John Locke was Jefferson's favorite philosopher.

Some of the founders were embarrassed by the plagiarism. Personally, I don't have a problem with it....Locke had been dead for almost a hundred years before the DoI was written but his philosophy lived on and became the foundation that our country was founded on. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Was Jefferson influenced by Locke? Certainly. I don't think there's any doubt he was. But I think it's a serious, almost absurd stretch for anyone to accuse Jefferson of plagiarizing him. One would first have to demonstrate Jefferson's motive in the language he chose was strictly personal, for his own benefit - and while some have attempted to assert that, there are simply no plausible arguments that work in that regard - despite the repeated attempts of some to make such accusations stick.

The language Jefferson employed, indeed the ideas and truths he formalized and put to paper were actually quite common at the time (case in point - SmartCat's post a few posts back), and were bandied about all over the country in various forms of articulation. One might even call them part of the culture of the day. If Jefferson was a plagiarist, then by such standards so is every politician in America today.

Moreover, I think it a serious mistake for anyone to accuse Jefferson of writing for himself. Indeed, I think the evidence is overwhelming that that's precisely what he did NOT do. Did what he wrote receive unanimous accolade? No. Neither did our US Constitution. If it had, we wouldn't have writings such as the Federalist Papers arguing various points of the Constitution.

Personally, I think Jefferson was an excellent writer and thinker. I don't think the thoughts he put to pen and paper in the DoI were all his own; in fact, it's clear they weren't. What he DID do was gather the most salient thoughts and articulate them in a way few others could. What he did write was certainly and unarguably inspired, and that inspiration came from various sources, including himself. What he collected and used, what he discarded, and how he put it all together as a whole was all Jefferson.

And the document itself, as Jefferson articulated it, was, and is, and remains an inspiration to those who agree with the truths and principles therein. Those who disagree with those truths and principles have, and will do whatever they might to disparage it - including disparaging its writer.

 

[betuadollar]

Politicians try to fulfil their campaign promises when they are elected. The problem is that in order to be elected one must make unrealistic promises. In particular, one must promise a growing economy. A growing economy with good jobs for everyone who wants one is probably no longer possible.

Donald Trump is doing that right now. He is promising to "Make America Great Again." If he is elected he will discover what Barack Obama discovered when he was elected: it is easier to run against a bad economy than it is to fix it.

Particularly so if one does not try to fix it.

 

[betuadollar]

Was Jefferson influenced by Locke? Certainly. I don't think there's any doubt he was. But I think it's a serious, almost absurd stretch for anyone to accuse Jefferson of plagiarizing him. One would first have to demonstrate Jefferson's motive in the language he chose was strictly personal, for his own benefit - and while some have attempted to assert that, there are simply no plausible arguments that work in that regard - despite the repeated attempts of some to make such accusations stick.

The language Jefferson employed, indeed the ideas and truths he formalized and put to paper were actually quite common at the time (case in point - SmartCat's post a few posts back), and were bandied about all over the country in various forms of articulation. One might even call them part of the culture of the day. If Jefferson was a plagiarist, then by such standards so is every politician in America today.

Moreover, I think it a serious mistake for anyone to accuse Jefferson of writing for himself. Indeed, I think the evidence is overwhelming that that's precisely what he did NOT do. Did what he wrote receive unanimous accolade? No. Neither did our US Constitution. If it had, we wouldn't have writings such as the Federalist Papers arguing various points of the Constitution.

Personally, I think Jefferson was an excellent writer and thinker. I don't think the thoughts he put to pen and paper in the DoI were all his own; in fact, it's clear they weren't. What he DID do was gather the most salient thoughts and articulate them in a way few others could. What he did write was certainly and unarguably inspired, and that inspiration came from various sources, including himself. What he collected and used, what he discarded, and how he put it all together as a whole was all Jefferson.

And the document itself, as Jefferson articulated it, was, and is, and remains an inspiration to those who agree with the truths and principles therein. Those who disagree with those truths and principles have, and will do whatever they might to disparage it - including disparaging its writer.

Before Jefferson began this journey he went all the way back, historically, to try and determine what precisely "law" is and where it originated in the western world. He did borrow the words of Locke, which Franklin reworded, but he did not steal them. Consider that there was no law at that moment, certainly there was no modern copyright law. What Jefferson and Franklin actually do is lend legitimacy to the words of Locke, and through rephrasing, thus create the most profound philosophical statement of all time. The Dec is both Aristotelian and Lockean. And I myself have used the word "plagiarism" but that's really not an accurate assessment.

 

[radcen]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that July 4th is NOT a celebration of independence. Rather, it is a celebration of an ASSERTION OF INDEPENDENCE, of the right to independence.

That's a fair observation. Actual independence didn't come until the war was settled.

As far as reading it, yes I have, though not in many years.

 

[Master PO]

I've read it and I noticed that it doesn't say anything about the rights of women and Black slaves.

:lol:

:lol:......the comedy around here never ends

 

[shrubnose]

:lol:.....

.the comedy around here never ends

Tell that to the women and Black people who gained nothing from the 'Declaration of Independance'.

I doubt that they're laughing.

 

[Master PO]

Tell that to the women and Black people who gained nothing from the 'Declaration of Independance'.

I doubt that they're laughing.

haha, the founding documents are not about gender......you believe something is not there....which was not what the document was about..

you and many others, had no idea what the founding is about, and that is a sad..... for this Union.

 

[shrubnose]

haha, the founding documents are not about gender......you believe something is not there....which was not what the document was about..

you and many others, had no idea what the founding is about,

and that is a sad..... for this Union.

The Declaration of Independance was about about securing rights for the old White men who ruled the USA then and still rule it today.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

:lol:

 

[Master PO]

The Declaration of Independance was about about securing rights for the old White men who ruled the USA then and still rule it today.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

:lol:

you need to wake up, and stop listening to left wing fools, and read the documents yourself and what the founders are talking about.

the document lays the founding principles of america, it talks about man....meaning a human being, it does not mean man[male], and it list the grievances against the king.

 

[shrubnose]

you need to wake up, and stop listening to left wing fools, and read the documents yourself and what the founders are talking about.

the document lays the founding principles of america,

it talks about man....meaning a human being, it does not mean man[male], and it list the grievances against the king.

How did those 'founding principles' work out for Black slaves and women back then? fill us in.

:lol:

 

[Master PO]

How did those 'founding principles' work out for Black slaves and women back then? fill us in.

:lol:

again you don't know history, 9 of the colonies wanted to end slavery then, 3 did not, and the colonies needed every one of them to be on board for independence against England, because it would have been impossible to win independence with divided colonies....so a compromise was made.

slaves were not considered people but property, and woman had rights, because they had life, liberty and could own property, ...voting was not a right in 1776 but a privilege.

the government under the articles of confederation, made slavery illegal where it had jurisdiction over, the states were sovereign and independent, the states created the federal government, the federal government could not end slavery in states because it had no authority under the u.s. constitution.

the principles are....man is born with rights, and the sole purpose of government is to .....secure those rights.