The Big Three Tyrannies... and the Revolution

[Trip]

The Declaration of Independence is a hack manifesto written to incite revolution in a population not much inclined toward it. As your ancestors certainly must have discussed in their letters, about a third of the population supported revolution, a third supported the crown and a third didn't care one way or the other. The rebels had do do something to move the numbers and a bit well-written but inflammatory rhetoric was just the the thing to do it.

Calling the Declaration of Independence a founding document, however, is silly. It mostly was ignored for the first 50 years after the revolution ended because it's insubstantial. It adds nothing to the plan of self-government and it's certainly worthless as a guarantee of natural rights. An author who says all men are equal except the ones I own has absolutely no credibility.

Now I'm off for a late celebration of the Fourth of July.

Go figure.

The DOI is not a hack manifesto.

It was not written to incite revolution, which was already occurring, but rather to state the reasons for our separation from Britain, and the means by which we could justify that separation. It was a declaration of cessation.

Your representations of "thirds" is not only inaccurate, but irrelevant. Populist appeal has no place in the analysis of the American revolution, its outcome, or the government that was founded thereon.

The Declaration of Independence is undeniably the founding document, and even the cornerstone of this country, given its recognition of unalienable <individual> rights, upon which this country is founded.

Furthermore, the DOI is is cited in U.S. Code, along with the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution itself as the "Organic Law" of this country. Organic law is the founding principle of a country, which this undeniably being a recognition the DOI is a "founding document".

In fact throughout the early history of this country, many acts and legislation were dated, not to the Constitution's ratification, but dated to the Declaration of Independence itself. Even Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address begins with the most famous phrase:

"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."​

That "Four score and seven", references "score", which is 20 years apiece, plus seven, totals a reference of 87 years. Eighty seven years prior to 1863 puts Lincoln's reference squarely at --- 1776 -- the date of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was basing his entire speech on what was created by that very Declaration of Independence.


It's a shame one so poorly versed in this country's history and fact, is off to celebrate the Fourth of July. Why one might even think that you don't recognize that holiday is also a reference that Declaration of Independence, and otherwise known as "Independence Day". (Hey, maybe they were just talking about a film with Will Smith about Aliens that aren't at all illegal)

 

[Occam's Razor]

How though? By law enforcement?

Remove their claim to natural rights and replace them with chartered privileges. That was the original intent of the founders, and how it was done prior to the 14th amendment. A constitutional amendment reserving these rights to flesh and blood persons and making provisions for extending those rights as privileges to all other entities would be nice but not necessary.

It should be officially recognized by our gov't because a corporation has no morals, no inherent ethics, no family, no friends, has a singular purpose of making profits regardless of impacts on employees, community, environment, etc... that there needs to be balance of purpose. The people are the moral conscience, they grant the charter in the public trust granting the privileges necessary for conducting business and can revoke if that public trust is broken.

There is currently no procedure for citizen initiated revocation of a corporate charter. There is no question that money is power. The entire point of our founding documents is protection of the freedom and rights of the people from accumulation of unwarranted power... checks and balances against all forms of potential, historical sources of tyranny.

 

[Occam's Razor]

The DOI is not a hack manifesto.

It was not written to incite revolution, which was already occurring, but rather to state the reasons for our separation from Britain, and the means by which we could justify that separation. It was a declaration of cessation.

Your representations of "thirds" is not only inaccurate, but irrelevant. Populist appeal has no place in the analysis of the American revolution, its outcome, or the government that was founded thereon.

The Declaration of Independence is undeniably the founding document, and even the cornerstone of this country, given its recognition of unalienable <individual> rights, upon which this country is founded.

Furthermore, the DOI is is cited in U.S. Code, along with the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution itself as the "Organic Law" of this country. Organic law is the founding principle of a country, which this undeniably being a recognition the DOI is a "founding document".

In fact throughout the early history of this country, many acts and legislation were dated, not to the Constitution's ratification, but dated to the Declaration of Independence itself. Even Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address begins with the most famous phrase:

"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."​

That "Four score and seven", references "score", which is 20 years apiece, plus seven, totals a reference of 87 years. Eighty seven years prior to 1863 puts Lincoln's reference squarely at --- 1776 -- the date of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was basing his entire speech on what was created by that very Declaration of Independence.


It's a shame one so poorly versed in this country's history and fact, is off to celebrate the Fourth of July. Why one might even think that you don't recognize that holiday is also a reference that Declaration of Independence, and otherwise known as "Independence Day". (Hey, maybe they were just talking about a film with Will Smith about Aliens that aren't at all illegal)

@JS
Additionally it is founded in 800 years of political philosophy to establish natural rights and self determination beginning with the Magna Carta. A hack? That you are so completely ignorant of the immensely important triumphs, sacrifices, struggle and prior law, Mr. Steel, and those like you, is the single greatest danger to this country.

Your views are absolutely unfounded... and profoundly ignorant

 

[Andalublue]

My family history is woven into the revolution and there is a fort on the east coast bearing my families name. I had a grandmother who was a national speaker for the DAR and benefitted from her scholarly knowledge and research.

Although you have some interesting ideas and make some good points, this (above) is a terrible argument to make. "I know what I'm talking about because I come from an old, aristo family"? I think you can do better than that.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Although you have some interesting ideas and make some good points, this (above) is a terrible argument to make. "I know what I'm talking about because I come from an old, aristo family"? I think you can do better than that.

LOL... far from aristocratic. Quite far. And it wasn't an argument... it was an indignant reply to a baseless personal accusation. Should I NOT be proud of my heritage? Should I not be proud of the contributions our family made to the founding of this country? While none of that matters in debate, it IS relevant to my knowledge of this country's history... on a personal level, and speaks to the troll's mistake in making personal attacks instead of addressing the topic.

That's all.

As for my actual debating ON topic... I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, even if I posted a CV with doctorates in history and a time machine.

But I do, or can at request, produce links and citations to support most of what I say... on topic.

 

[Andalublue]

LOL... far from aristocratic. Quite far. And it wasn't an argument... it was an indignant reply to a baseless personal accusation. Should I NOT be proud of my heritage? Should I not be proud of the contributions our family made to the founding of this country? While none of that matters in debate,

No, it doesn't.

it IS relevant to my knowledge of this country's history.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. Knowledge comes from study, not from bloodline.

and speaks to the troll's mistake in making personal attacks instead of addressing the topic.

He's only a troll if he attacks without making an argument, but if he does that, bringing up family ties makes it look like you're claiming some kind of family entitlement. I'd focus on making a better argument.

But I do, or can at request, produce links and citations to support most of what I say... on topic.

Then I'd do that and pretend as if you have no illustrious forebears, after all, we've only got your word for it.

 

[Joe Steel]

Your quote was... "Obviously you've never read them. Perhaps you should do that before posting any further."

This is NOT a statement of skepticism, rather an arrogant statement of assumed fact. It is dripping with condescension. If your purpose was neutral skepticism might I suggest you ASK if I've read them rather than declaring knowledge you don't have.

The error in communication was not mine. Your stock is quickly losing ground by trying to back peddle and soft sell your previous STATEMENT

And still you offer nothing more than "no it isn't" and "no I didn't"

Epic fail!

We'll just have to disagree on this. I don't see my suggestion as a personal attack. To be that it would have to have been much more vicious. As it was, it was just a bit of sarcasm.

 

[Occam's Razor]

No, it doesn't.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. Knowledge comes from study, not from bloodline.

He's only a troll if he attacks without making an argument, but if he does that, bringing up family ties makes it look like you're claiming some kind of family entitlement. I'd focus on making a better argument.

Then I'd do that and pretend as if you have no illustrious forebears, after all, we've only got your word for it.

I never claimed it came from bloodline... as I indicated, it was taught to me from a very early age by one of the most respected lecturers on the subject who just happened to be my grandmother. I also indicated and supplied a link to my reading list, most of which was completed before the age of 12. In other words, I'm not recently interested in this, most knowledge I have predates the internet and it's "all views are valid" silliness.

Now, if you and others chose to focus on the family aspect as opposed to it as reference only to a long personal history of STUDY... I can't help that.

 

[Occam's Razor]

We'll just have to disagree on this. I don't see my suggestion as a personal attack. To be that it would have to have been much more vicious. As it was, it was just a bit of sarcasm.

Cool, great... are you ever going to get to addressing the topic? You know, contribute your own thoughts? Risk criticism based on your demonstration of your knowledge... or are you just a troll that criticizes others?

 

[Joe Steel]

... Furthermore, the DOI is is cited in U.S. Code, along with the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution itself as the "Organic Law" of this country. Organic law is the founding principle of a country, which this undeniably being a recognition the DOI is a "founding document".

In fact throughout the early history of this country, many acts and legislation were dated, not to the Constitution's ratification, but dated to the Declaration of Independence itself. Even Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address begins with the most famous phrase:

"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."​

...

You contend the use of 4 July 1776 for counting makes the Declaration of Independence a founding document? Is that it?

 

[Trip]

You contend the use of 4 July 1776 for counting makes the Declaration of Independence a founding document? Is that it?

eh, no.

I contend that the dating of events in this country, from the Declaration, shows that the Declaration is recognized as not just "a" founding document, but "the" founding document, and the founding moment of this country. (Do you contend otherwise?)

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."
- United States Constitution, Article VII

"Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, in the city of New York, the 14th day of August, A.D. 1790, and in the fifteenth year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States. By the President: GEORGE WASHINGTON"
- George Washington, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 80, August 14, 1790.

"In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at Philadelphia, the 22nd day of July, A.D. 1797, and of the Independence of the United States the twenty-second. By the President: JOHN ADAMS"
- John Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 249, July 22, 1797.

"In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Washington, the 16th day of July, A.D. 1803, and in the twenty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: THOMAS JEFFERSON"
- Thomas Jefferson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 357, July 16, 1803.

"Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city of Washington, the 9th day of August, A.D. 1809, and of the Independence of the said United States the thirty-fourth. By the President: JAMES MADISON"
- James Madison, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 473, August 9, 1809.

"Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of April, A.D. 1818, and of the Independence of the United States the forty-second. By the President: JAMES MONROE"
- James Monroe, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 36, April 28, 1818.

"Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 17th day of March, A.D. 1827, and the fifty-first year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS"
- John Quincy Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 376, March 17, 1827.

"Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 11th day of May, A.D. 1829, and the fifty-third of the Independence of the United States. By the President: ANDREW JACKSON"
- Andrew Jackson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 440, May 11, 1829.
​

Also, as additional evidence that the DOI is our founding document <and moment>, states in the union could not violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

"[T]he constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."​

As seen in the Colorado, Nevada, Nebraska, and Oklahoma Enabling Acts.

The United States Constitution must always be interpreted by the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught
doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence ...
let me entreat you to come back. ... Come back to the truths
that are in the Declaration of Independence."

~Abraham Lincoln​

 

[Joe Steel]

eh, no.

I contend that the dating of events in this country, from the Declaration, shows that the Declaration is recognized as not just "a" founding document, but "the" founding document, and the founding moment of this country. (Do you contend otherwise?)

Yes.

The Lee resolution was approved on 02 July by the Second Continental Congress.

Resolved, 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.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

That resolution, as the act of legislative body, is far more authoritative than the document prepared to make the act of rebellion more appealing to the masses.

 

[Trip]

Yes.

Your own original statement was, "You contend the use of 4 July 1776 for counting makes the Declaration of Independence a founding document? Is that it?"

The answer to that is "no". No, the dating in various documents to July 4, 1776, does not make the DOI a founding document, but rather recognizes it as such.

The Lee resolution was approved on 02 July by the Second Continental Congress.

So, what's your point? Does your claim on what happened on what date invalidate the DOI being a founding document, and even the founding document, of this country? No, it does not.

The Lee Resolution is no more the founding document of this country, than was the Congressional resolution under Clinton that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, a declaration of war.

That resolution, as the act of legislative body, is far more authoritative than the document prepared to make the act of rebellion more appealing to the masses.

The Declaration of Independence is the act of that legislative body, its declared resolve. The "Lee resolution" was a resolve of what "ought" to be, the intention to be free of Britain, and that resolve culminated in the Declaration of Independence, which included not just a resolve, but the reasoning, and principle for the resolve.

As such, no, the Lee Resolution is not more authoritative, as it did not provide any listing of offenses to cause that independence, much less state by what authority that independence might be argued. It is both of these distinctions in the DOI which cause it to be recognized as this nation's founding document.

Trying to diminish the DOI as some PR stunt only "appealing to the masses" is just not accurate, and shows a great deal of bias. A real study of American history, and what that document's signers actually faced, would show just how misguided your evaluation is.

 

[Joe Steel]

Your own original statement was, "You contend the use of 4 July 1776 for counting makes the Declaration of Independence a founding document? Is that it?"

The answer to that is "no". No, the dating in various documents to July 4, 1776, does not make the DOI a founding document, but rather recognizes it as such.

I don't think so. Independence was born in the Lee Resolution. The Declaration of Independence is merely the birth announcement.

So, what's your point? Does your claim on what happened on what date invalidate the DOI being a founding document, and even the founding document, of this country? No, it does not.

The Lee Resolution is no more the founding document of this country, than was the Congressional resolution under Clinton that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, a declaration of war.

The Lee Resolution was signed on 02 July. John Adams said of that date:

“The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

Obviously, the men who set their 13 States on a path toward war with the greatest power in the world thought their act was pretty important.

 

[Joe Steel]

The Declaration of Independence is the act of that legislative body, its declared resolve. The "Lee resolution" was a resolve of what "ought" to be, the intention to be free of Britain, and that resolve culminated in the Declaration of Independence, which included not just a resolve, but the reasoning, and principle for the resolve.

As such, no, the Lee Resolution is not more authoritative, as it did not provide any listing of offenses to cause that independence, much less state by what authority that independence might be argued. It is both of these distinctions in the DOI which cause it to be recognized as this nation's founding document.

Trying to diminish the DOI as some PR stunt only "appealing to the masses" is just not accurate, and shows a great deal of bias. A real study of American history, and what that document's signers actually faced, would show just how misguided your evaluation is.

The DoI was the product of a committee. They were assigned the task of presenting the work of Congress to those they represented and they chose Thomas Jefferson to write their document because he was a good writer. Jefferson included the "long train of abuses and usurpations" because everyone who read it could find an "abuse or usurpation" which make him angry enough to support revolution. It's not as if Jefferson wrote the document first and Congress said "Yes! That's it! Let's revolt!" They already had decided. They just needed something to explain what they did.

 

[Trip]

The DoI was the product of a committee. They were assigned the task of presenting the work of Congress to those they represented and they chose Thomas Jefferson to write their document because he was a good writer. Jefferson included the "long train of abuses and usurpations" because everyone who read it could find an "abuse or usurpation" which make him angry enough to support revolution. It's not as if Jefferson wrote the document first and Congress said "Yes! That's it! Let's revolt!" They already had decided. They just needed something to explain what they did.

Congress did not have unanimous support for the Lee resolution. It's not as if everyone read it and said "Yes, we're not longer a part of Britain". New York did not support Independence until July 15, eleven days after the Declaration was approved.

Instead what Jefferson wrote was a compilation of members of congress, and even included phrasings from the Lee resolution.

"Deciding" they ought to be free, is quite a lot less than deciding why they ought to be free, and on what basis.

The Lee resolution was a resolution of the moment, but not a measured perspective, and certainly not containing philosophy that a form of government might be based on.

 

[Joe Steel]

The Lee resolution was a resolution of the moment, but not a measured perspective, and certainly not containing philosophy that a form of government might be based on.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The Lee Resolution was introduced a month before the vote was held. Congress delayed the vote on it so its supporters could generate support in States where support was weak. The only way that could happen is by debating it. That's a pretty good way of generating a perspective.

Secondly, there's almost no philosophy in the DoI and what there is, is suspect. Jefferson talks of all men being equal but he's a slave owner. He quotes John Locke but changes "life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Why did he do that? Because the state of political philosophy in America wasn't as advanced as it was in England and Jefferson wanted to keep it that way.

 

[Trip]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The Lee Resolution was introduced a month before the vote was held. Congress delayed the vote on it so its supporters could generate support in States where support was weak. The only way that could happen is by debating it. That's a pretty good way of generating a perspective.

Secondly, there's almost no philosophy in the DoI and what there is, is suspect. Jefferson talks of all men being equal but he's a slave owner. He quotes John Locke but changes "life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Why did he do that? Because the state of political philosophy in America wasn't as advanced as it was in England and Jefferson wanted to keep it that way.

When the Lee resolution was introduced was irrelevant. The Lee resolution had no force to it whatsoever, not in any statement of the causes for the colonies to be free, or by what authority they declared this freedom. The statement "by right ought to be free" had no statement whatsoever of what "right" it was referencing. And as a result it was not unanimous among the colonies.

The Lee declaration had all the force of more contemporary resolutions such as S.R. 511, except the Lee Resolution made not even a superficial attempt to establish principle and cause. If you don't know what S.R. 511 is, it was a non-binding resolution declaring John McCain to be a natural born citizen, and the Senate had no authority to make anyone a natural born citizen by virtue of a resolution, and the terms it cited, more aptly misrepresented, were fraudulent claims, iwth the entirety of the resolution having no affect, and being only evidence of collusion and fraud. McCain was never a qualified candidate for the office of President.

Similarly the Colonial congress had no direct, ongoing authority under which they operated to declare the colonies free. While the colonies had many representations of wrong against them, and were in a state of revolution against the Crown since 1775, and by some terms even before then, this state of revolution in no way implied that the outcome should be entire severance from Britain and the Crown. Under that revolution, there had been as yet no overt public statement by what "rights" the colonists ought to be free of Britain. Under feudal principle, by which those colonies came into existence, rights were only provided by the Crown's authority, and obligation of allegiance superseded any individual right that might come as a provision from that Crown.

Lee's resolution had no impact on American history because it did not resolve any of these conflicts, but the Declaration of Independence actually did so. Debating among Congress whether or not they ought to be free from the Crown does not at all provide any authority to do so, any more so than does debate and consensus of congressional popular opinion on whether John McCain might be a natural born citizen, provide him any actual qualification of natural born status to be President.

Your claim that there's "almost no philosophy in the DOI" is utter nonsense, and entirely fails ignores that the DOI recognizes the longstanding philosophy of natural law rights being innate to the individual, not from any Crown, and applies these rights to actual transgressions by the Crown creating the case of repeated and deliberate transgressions, a "long train of abuses and usurpations pursing invariably the same object."


The philosophy applied by the Declaration involves Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others all the way back to Aristotle. In contrast to the Lee resolution, the Declaration defines by "what right" the colonies ought to be, and are, free of Britain, being by "self-evident truths", with all men being "created equal", not by any state endowment, but innate to each individual, and "unalienable", unable to be denied by the state, under natural law, which is by definition outside of any Positive man-made law. The claim that there is "almost no philosophy" ignores not just the DOI and its clearly referenced and applied philosophy, but the long history of philosophy that precedes it, none of which needed to be directly referenced to actually have been employed in the DOI. This was not an academic paper, but rather a public declaration.

To no surprise, your "very liberal" perspective would deny the existence of these rights, and their enormous importance in history. Utilitarian and relativist philosophies, by their very nature, must reject any philosophy involving a recognition of the inherent nature of man and the nature of the society in which men operate. Socialists necessarily intend to remold, not just that invariable human nature, but the entirety of society, by compulsion to suit their vision, in disregard of that nature, and any individual rights. However the repeated failures of Socialists, and disregard for the unwavering nature of man in their forms of government is evidenced by and resulting in the enormous failures of those forms of government on catastrophic terms, invariably among the greatest horrors in mankind's history.

 

[Joe Steel]

When the Lee resolution was introduced was irrelevant. ...

It isn't irrelevant.

Earlier you said:

The Lee resolution was a resolution of the moment, but not a measured perspective ...

As I've shown, it wasn't just a whim. The issue of independence was raised and debated over a period of time. The result was a measured perspective.

 

[Trip]

It isn't irrelevant.

Earlier you said:



As I've shown, it wasn't just a whim. The issue of independence was raised and debated over a period of time. The result was a measured perspective.

You've shown that? How exactly did YOU do that, exactly?

How do you lay claim to a measure in the Lee Resolution, when there is no measure anywhere in that resolution to be had, but somehow you showed something?

You didn't show anything. The Lee Resolution didn't provide anything. It just made a statement, without any rationale for how, or why, the United States "ought" to be free. Your claim that the the Lee resolution was a "measured" perspective, when it did not provide any measure for it's own claim whatsoever, showing zero perspective.

All of that "measure" is in the Declaration of Independence, inclusive of statements of the "why", and the "how", and ending with each signator "measuring" the other, having sworn their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honors each in support of the other.

 

[Joe Steel]

You've shown that? How exactly did YOU do that, exactly?

How do you lay claim to a measure in the Lee Resolution, when there is no measure anywhere in that resolution to be had, but somehow you showed something?

You didn't show anything. The Lee Resolution didn't provide anything. It just made a statement, without any rationale for how, or why, the United States "ought" to be free. Your claim that the the Lee resolution was a "measured" perspective, when it did not provide any measure for it's own claim whatsoever, showing zero perspective.

All of that "measure" is in the Declaration of Independence, inclusive of statements of the "why", and the "how", and ending with each signator "measuring" the other, having sworn their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honors each in support of the other.

I've showed by insisting the process behind the Lee Resolution by considered.

The Lee Resolution was debated in Congress over the course of a month and then passed unanimously by the delegates. Debate is how we do things in democracies. We raise issues, talk about them and then vote and the process is designed to be slow so every voice can be heard. Presumably, every "abuse and usurpation" mentioned in the DoI was deliberated and the DoI likely merely lists the issues debated in Congress. Consequently, it's not much more than a recap of the real work. You can call that a "founding document" if you like but you'd be misrepresenting what happened if you did.

 

[Trip]

I've showed by insisting the process behind the Lee Resolution by considered.



The Lee Resolution was debated in Congress over the course of a month and then passed unanimously by the delegates. Debate is how we do things in democracies. We raise issues, talk about them and then vote and the process is designed to be slow so every voice can be heard. Presumably, every "abuse and usurpation" mentioned in the DoI was deliberated and the DoI likely merely lists the issues debated in Congress. Consequently, it's not much more than a recap of the real work. You can call that a "founding document" if you like but you'd be misrepresenting what happened if you did.

Eh, no.

The Lee Resolution was not debated over a month, as there is nothing there to really debate, with even the authority of the colonial Congress to sever ties from Britain being in question, not to mention what might be the end-goal of those severed ties. Many were actually fighting solely with the intent of resisting Britain's tyranny, rather than with any overall objective of independence.

Allow me to refresh the collective memories about your original statements and the overall disagreement:

You reversed my original assertion, and questioned in post #35 that I was asserting that the reference point July 4, 1776 for counting makes the Declaration of Independence a founding document. In response, in post #36 I clarified, no, that I was demonstrating that the repeated reference of this date reflects (shows) that the DOI was recognized as, not just a founding document, but THE founding document of this country.

THen in posts #37 and #39 , that the DOI was an act by committee, and that the Lee Resolution (LR), was an act of the entirety of Congress, even thought it was not ratified unanimously, as if the DOI coming out of committee somehow made it less authoritative when it was unanimously ratified, and that the DOI was "merely the birth announcement", with independence set forth by the Lee Resolution.​

This ignores the fact that the Lee Resolution was only directed at Congress, and did not actually establish independence, but was addressing "ought to" be free, and not establishing de facto freedom, nor stating any terms why that freedom "ought to" be.

The Lee Resolution was actually only seeking to differentiate those fighting Britain to establish less tyrannous governance, and those fighting to sever from Britain, and in no way actually established any sort of unified cause, and philosophy among the colonies, much less the birth of any sort of unified government.

The DOI is most assuredly NOT merely a "birth announcement" as nothing had been birthed. Not only was there not any freedom, but there was no unified colonies as a result of that Lee Resolution, therefore nothing having been "birthed". There was no philosophy inherent to that Lee Resolution to serve as unifying those colonies, beyond the fact that they wanted to be free, which the LR did not establish by July 2nd, as it was not uniformly ratified, and the members of congress had no authority to act for the citizens of the colony in that regard.

This fact is further reflected in the Lee Resolution being all of 80 words. In comparison the Declaration of Independence was 1,322 words in length, which not only involved a listing of grievances, causes, against the Crown, but also contained the philosophy and principles that gave birth to these United States, which obviously could not yet be any sort of "birth announcement", as nothing had been birthed, much less freed!

Here is the entirety of the Lee Resolution:

Resolved, 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. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.​

Of note, the Lee Resolution only asserts that the colonies are "independent States", and nowhere any sort of singular nation created from them, much less any philosophy for a nation, nor even any cause stipulated for the separation, much less any reasoning by universally applicable law how this separation might be justified. That justification under universally applicable law came from the DOI's reference to natural law.

The Lee Resolution proposed plan of confederation had nothing more behind it than the need to unite against the Britain, and this was a major issue among the colonies that continued on even after the DOI, throughout the Articles of Confederation, and into the ratification of the Constitution itself! The reference in the Articles of Confederation to "perpetual union" is a reference to the fact that the union was not just some sort of temporary alliance to fight England, but was a long-term alliance intended to endure beyond that conflict.

Contrary to popular self-serving views, nowhere in the use of that "perpetual Union" in the AOC does it involve, or even imply, any sort of compulsory union.

However all of those oversights not included in the Lee Resolution were in fact provided in the Declaration of Independence. The DOI's enunciation of the principles of unalienable individual rights, with the purpose of every form of government being to protect those unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and pursuit Happiness are why the Declaration of Independence is actually recognized as the Organic Law and founding principle of this country! History demonstrates that it was in fact these principles that were able to unite those disparate colonies beyond the common interest of the immediate conflict with England.

The DOI was not even close to being "merely a birth announcement", as nothing had yet been birthed, but was the cornerstone of this country, which had yet to be born. The fact that a committee was needed for the DOI reflects the enormity of the undertaking in establishing not only the "cause" but the reasoning by which the colonies might be free from England, and does not diminish the impact of the DOI in the slightest. Meanwhile a squirrel with a singular focus on a nut could have come up with the Lee Resolution, with it's sole focus being severing ties with Britain - "free".

 

[Joe Steel]

Eh, no.

The Lee Resolution was not debated over a month ...

I'm puzzled. The resolution was introduced on 07 June 1776 and adopted on 02 July. That's about a month. What's the problem?

 

[Joe Steel]

... This ignores the fact that the Lee Resolution was only directed at Congress, and did not actually establish independence, but was addressing "ought to" be free, and not establishing de facto freedom, nor stating any terms why that freedom "ought to" be. ...

The Resolution says:

Resolved, 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.

The use of the world "are" seems like establishing independence to me. What's the problem?

 

[Trip]

The Resolution says:

The use of the world "are" seems like establishing independence to me. What's the problem?

Yeah, it also used the word "resolved" too.

What's the problem? The British occupied New York City in September of 1776, and Philadelphia a year later. Nothing was "birthed" by the Lee Resolution, the Declaration of Independence was not a "birth announcement", and the Lee Resolution was not a founding document.

Empty Congressional resolutions don't actually accomplish a lot, particularly when there's nothing else in them, and what is resolved is contrary to fact.