4th of July

What the Declaration of Independence Said and Meant

It officially adopted the political theory of the United States: securing the individual rights of We the People


[This year, my annual post celebrating the Fourth of July is drawn from a chapter of Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, and from a short essay on the same topic, The Declaration of Independence and the American Theory of Government: First Come Rights, and Then Comes Government." It also draws upon Sean Wilentz, No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation's Founding]

The Declaration of Independence used to be read aloud at public gatherings every Fourth of July. Today, while all Americans have heard of it, all too few have read more than its second sentence. Yet the Declaration shows the natural rights foundation of the American Revolution, and provides important information about what the founders believed makes a constitution or government legitimate. It also raises the question of how these fundamental rights are reconciled with the idea of "the consent of the governed," another idea for which the Declaration is famous.

The adoption of the Declaration, and the public affirmation of its principles, led directly to the phased in abolition of slavery in half of the United States by the time the Constitution was drafted as well as the abolition of slavery in the Northwest Territory. The Rhode Island gradual abolition law of 1784 read:

All men are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the holding Mankind in a State of Slavery, as private property, which has gradually obtained by unrestrained Custom and the Permission of the Law, is repugnant to this Principle, and subversive of the Happiness of Mankind.

Later, the Declaration also assumed increasing importance in the struggle to abolish slavery. It became a lynchpin of the moral and constitutional arguments of the nineteenth-century abolitionists. As one New Yorker opposed to slavery wrote in 1797:

The right of property which every man has to his personal liberty is paramount to all the laws of property…. All I contend for at present is, that no claims of property can ever justly interfere with, or be suffered to impede the operation of that noble and eternal principle, that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights–and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration was much relied upon by Abraham Lincoln and many others before him:

Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of "Liberty to all"–the principle that clears the path for all–gives hope to all–and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.

The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.

The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, "fitly spoken" which has proved an "apple of gold" to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture.

The Declaration had to be explained away–quite unconvincingly–by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. And eventually it was repudiated by some defenders of slavery in the South because of its inconsistency with that institution.

When reading the Declaration, it is worth keeping in mind two very important facts. The Declaration constituted high treason against the Crown. Every person who signed it would be executed as traitors should they be caught by the British. Second, the Declaration was considered to be a legal document by which the revolutionaries justified their actions and explained why they were not truly traitors. It represented, as it were, a literal indictment of the Crown and Parliament, in the very same way that criminals are now publicly indicted for their alleged crimes by grand juries representing "the People."

But to justify a revolution, it was not thought to be enough that officials of the government of England, the Parliament, or even the sovereign himself had violated the rights of the people. No government is perfect; all governments violate rights. This was well known. So the Americans had to allege more than mere violations of rights. They had to allege nothing short of a criminal conspiracy to violate their rights systematically. Hence, the famous reference to "a long train of abuses and usurpations" and the list that follows the first two paragraphs. In some cases, these specific complaints account for provisions eventually included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, I explain how the Declaration encapsulated the political theory that lead the Constitution some eleven years later. To appreciate all that is packed into the two paragraphs that comprise the preamble to the list of grievances, it is useful to break down the Declaration into some of its key claims.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

This first sentence is often forgotten. It asserts that Americans as a whole (and not as members of their respective colonies) are a distinct "people." To "dissolve the political bands" revokes the "social compact" that existed between the Americans and the rest of "the People" of the British commonwealth, reinstates the "state of nature" between Americans and the government of Great Britain, and makes "the Laws of Nature" the standard by which this dissolution and whatever government is to follow are judged. "Declare the causes" indicates they are publicly stating the reasons and justifying their actions rather than acting as thieves in the night. The Declaration is like the indictment of a criminal that states the basis of his criminality. But the ultimate judge of the rightness of their cause will be God, which is why the revolutionaries spoke of an "appeal to heaven"—an expression commonly found on revolutionary banners and flags. As British political theorist John Locke wrote: "The people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to heaven." The reference to a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" might be viewed as a kind of an international public opinion test. Or perhaps the emphasis is on the word "respect," recognizing the obligation to provide the rest of the world with an explanation they can evaluate for themselves.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

The most famous line of the Declaration. On the one hand, this will become a great embarrassment to a people who permitted slavery. On the other hand, making public claims like this has consequences—that's why people make them publicly. To be held to account. This promise will provide the heart of the abolitionist case in the nineteenth century, which is why late defenders of slavery eventually came to reject the Declaration. And it forms the basis for Martin Luther King's metaphor of the civil rights movement as a promissory note that a later generation has come to collect.

Notice that the rights of "life," "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" are individual, not collective or group rights. They belong to "We the People"—each and every one. This is not to say that government may not create collective, positive rights; but only that the rights that the next sentence tells us are to be secured by government belong to us as individuals.

What are "unalienable," or more commonly, "inalienable rights"? Inalienable rights are those you cannot give up even if you want to and consent to do so, unlike other rights that you can agree to transfer or waive. Why the claim that they are inalienable rights? The Founders want to counter England's claim that, by accepting the colonial governance, the colonists had waived or alienated their rights. The Framers claimed that with inalienable rights, you always retain the ability to take back any right that has been given up.

A standard trilogy throughout this period was "life, liberty, and property." For example, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (1774) read: "That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS: Resolved, 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent." Or, as John Locke wrote, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

When drafting the Declaration in June of 1776, Jefferson based his formulation on a preliminary version of the Virginia Declaration of Rights that had been drafted by George Mason at the end of May for Virginia's provincial convention. Here is how Mason's draft read:

THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Notice how George Mason's oft-repeated formulation combines the right of property with the pursuit of happiness. And, in his draft, not only do all persons have "certain . . . natural rights" of life, liberty, and property, but these rights cannot be taken away "by any compact." Again, these rights each belong to individuals. And these inherent individual natural rights, of which the people—whether acting collectively or as individuals—cannot divest their posterity, are therefore retained by them, which is helpful in understanding the Ninth Amendment's reference to the "rights…retained by the people."

Interestingly, Mason's draft was slightly altered by the Virginia Convention in Williamsburg on June 11, 1776. After an extensive debate, the officially adopted version read (with the modifications in italics):

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

This version is still in effect today.

According to historian Pauline Meier, by changing "are born equally free" to "are by nature equally free," and "inherent natural rights" to "inherent rights," and then by adding "when they enter into a state of society," defenders of slavery in the Virginia convention could contend that slaves were not covered because they "had never entered Virginia's society, which was confined to whites." Yet it was the language of Mason's radical draft—rather than either Virginia's final wording or Jefferson's more succinct formulation—that became the canonical statement of first principles. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Vermont adopted Mason's original references to "born equally free" and to "natural rights" into their declarations of rights while omitting the phrase "when they enter into a state of society." Indeed, it is remarkable that these states would have had Mason's draft language, rather than the version actually adopted by Virginia, from which to copy. Here is Massachusetts' version:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Virginia slaveholders' concerns about Mason's formulation proved to be warranted. In 1783, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied upon this more radical language to invalidate slavery in that state. And its influence continued. In 1823, it was incorporated into an influential circuit court opinion by Justice Bushrod Washington defining the "privileges and immunities" of citizens in the several states as "protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety."

Justice Washington's opinion in Corfield (to which we will return), with Mason's language at its core, was then repeatedly quoted by Republicans in the Thirty-Ninth Congress when they explained the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was this constitutional language that Republicans aimed at the discriminatory Black Codes by which Southerners were seeking to perpetuate the subordination of blacks, even after slavery had been abolished.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.… "

Another overlooked line, which is of greatest relevance to our discussion of the first underlying assumption of the Constitution: the assumption of natural rights. Here, even more clearly than in Mason's draft, the Declaration stipulates that the ultimate end or purpose of republican governments is "to secure these" preexisting natural rights that the previous sentence affirmed were the measure against which all government—whether of Great Britain or the United States—will be judged. This language identifies what is perhaps the central underlying "republican" assumption of the Constitution: that governments are instituted to secure the preexisting natural rights that are retained by the people. In short, that first come rights and then comes government.

"…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Today, there is a tendency to focus entirely on the second half of this sentence, referencing "the consent of the governed," to the exclusion of the first part, which refers to securing our natural rights. Then, by reading "the consent of the governed" as equivalent to "the will of the people," the second part of the sentence seems to support majoritarian rule by the people's "representatives." In this way, "consent of the governed" is read to mean "consent to majoritarian rule." Put another way, the people can consent to anything, including rule by a majority in the legislature who will then decide the scope of their rights as individuals.

But read carefully, one sees that in this passage the Declaration speaks of "just powers," suggesting that only some powers are "justly" held by government, while others are beyond its proper authority. And notice also that "the consent of the governed" assumes that the people do not themselves rule or govern, but are "governed" by those individual persons who make up the "governments" that "are instituted among men."

The Declaration stipulates that those who govern the people are supposed "to secure" their preexisting rights, not impose the will of a majority of the people on the minority. And, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights made explicit, these inalienable rights cannot be surrendered "by any compact." Therefore, the "consent of the governed," to which the second half of this sentence refers, cannot be used to override the inalienable rights of the sovereign people that are reaffirmed by the first half.

In modern political discourse, people tend to favor one of these concepts over the other—either preexistent natural rights or popular consent—which leads them to stress one part of this sentence in the Declaration over the other. The fact that rights can be uncertain and disputed leads some to emphasize the consent part of this sentence and the legitimacy of popularly enacted legislation. But the fact that there is never unanimous consent to any particular law, or even to the government itself, leads others to emphasize the rights part of this sentence and the legitimacy of judges protecting the "fundamental" or "human" rights of individuals and minorities.

If we take both parts of this sentence seriously, however, this apparent tension can be reconciled by distinguishing between (a) the ultimate end or purpose of legitimate governance and (b) how any particular government gains jurisdiction to rule. So, while the protection of natural rights or justice is the ultimate end of governance, particular governments only gain jurisdiction to achieve this end by the consent of those who are governed. In other words, the "consent of the governed" tells us which government gets to undertake the mission of "securing" the natural rights that are retained by the people. After all, justifying the independence of Americans from the British government was the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

People have the right to take back power from the government. Restates the end—human safety and happiness—and connects the principles and forms of government as means to this end.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Affirms at least two propositions: On the one hand, long-established government should not be changed for just any reason. The mere fact that rights are violated is not enough to justify revolution. All governments on earth will sometimes violate rights. But things have to become very bad before anyone is going to organize a resistance. Therefore, the very existence of this Declaration is evidence that things are very bad indeed.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Revolution is justified only if there "is a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object"—evidence of what amounts to an actual criminal conspiracy by the government against the rights of the people. The opposite of "light and transient causes," that is, the more ordinary violations of rights by government.

"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III—Eds.] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

What follows is a bill of indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights. Others are addressed by the form of the government established—first by the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.

The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: "First comes rights, then comes government." According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are "inalienable," meaning they are so intimately connected to one's nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.

At the Founding, these ideas were considered so true as to be self-evident. However, today the idea of natural rights is obscure and controversial. Oftentimes, when the idea comes up, it is deemed to be archaic. Moreover, the discussion by many of natural rights, as reflected in the Declaration's claim that such rights "are endowed by their Creator," leads many to characterize natural rights as religiously based rather than secular. As I explain in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, I believe this is a mistake.

The political theory announced in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up in a single sentence: First come rights, and then comes government. This proposition is not, as some would say, a libertarian theory of government. The Declaration of Independence shows it to be the officially adopted American Theory of Government.

  • According to the American Theory of Government, the rights of individuals do not originate with any government but pre-exist its formation;
  • According to the American Theory of Government, the protection of these rights is both the purpose and first duty of government;
  • According to the American Theory of Government, at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are inalienable, meaning that they are so intimately connected to one's nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so;
  • According to the American Theory of Government, because these rights are inalienable, even after a government is formed, they provide a standard by which its performance is measured; in extreme cases, a government's systemic violation of these rights or failure to protect them can justify its alteration and abolition. In the words of the Declaration, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends," that is the securing of these rights, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The original public meaning of the text of the Declaration of Independence is distinct from the original public meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, however it is properly interpreted, does not justify itself. To be legitimate, it must be consistent with political principles that are capable of justifying it. Moreover, these same publicly identified original principles are needed inform how the original public meaning of the Constitution is to be faithfully to be applied when the text of
the Constitution is not alone specific enough to decide a case or controversy.

The original principles that the Founders thought underlie and justify the Constitution were neither shrouded in mystery nor to be found by parsing the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, or Machiavelli.

On July 2nd, 1776, the Congress of the United States voted for independence from Great Britain. On July 4th, 1776, it officially adopted the American Theory of Government, which was publicly articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

Happy Independence Day!

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: July 4, 1776

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s a great national shame how Americans are not practicing eternal vigilance.

    They’re letting their heritage be erased and re-written. Hopefully, they will realize it and reverse the trend. Let us be optimistic.

    But for today, I hope to see mass civil disobedience today and light those fireworks up. The country’s morale is low and it needs a spark.

    Happy 4th from this Canadian.

    1. Our heritage is destroying the confederacy and using too much mercy, if anything, to do it. Our heritage is also one of deeply embedded racism and apartheid. If you don’t want that to be true, tough titties, because it is. These people don’t want to accurately or honestly talk about our heritage. They want to erase those parts that make them feel bad or that confer any responsibility on them. Like how children act.

      1. Kinda like the current trend of canceling those with “wrong “ opinions.

        1. Not actually a thing.

          1. Though it kind of was a thing back when it happened to the Dixie Chicks.

            1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot..

              Heres what I do……new Income Opportunities

      2. America’s heritage is that of a former colony of Europe, like every other nation in North and South America, most of Asia, Oceana, and Africa, that battled for independence then eventually battled to end slavery, at a time when it was unchallenged in other parts of the world, including Cuba and South America. The heritage of the USA was to open its borders to people all over the world. Its heritage was to climb further ahead than any country ever had or imagined. The US has evolved to become a nation in which minorities prosper more than anywhere else on earth. The US is the country that gave the world individual liberty, gay pride, rock n roll and Faceook. In post-Obama America, we’re now facing another challenge to these concepts of free will and progress and that’s an enemy within. It’s an enemy that is wealthy, educated, organized and supported by big media and its parent corporations. It’s an enemy that wears the mask of liberalism, but in truth is anti-liberal and finds its inspiration from the same european colonial mentality that America crushed 244 years ago. Happy Independence Day. Gay American, and proud.

    2. Fireworks going off like crazy here in California. A couple of official shows, and lots and lots of scofflaws (and gangs) lighting up everything.

    3. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Click For Full Details.

  2. Well done, Prof. Barnett. Thanks for helping us remember. Happy Independence Day.

  3. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….. Read more

  4. The rabid extreme left’s SOP is to trash the history of a country and then attempt to erase it so that the people can be re-formed using their own agenda.

    Every single country in human history has done something that is later viewed as being inconsistent from a future moral/ethical position. Things that happen today are destined for that same judgment. And the left should probably remember that when their judgement day comes.

    1. So it’s dismissive moral relativism all the way… until such time the “left” decides to annoy you about the fact that maybe we did some bad things we should reckon with. Slavery? Eh, everyone was a dick back then. The “left” having a street protest? We’ve reached the bridge too far!

      1. This makes absolutely no sense. Were you drinking when you posted this?

      2. Your anti-Americanism is a form of elitist snobbish, and that’s it.

      3. “We did some bad things that we should reckon with”. Been done. Ad nauseum. And who is this “we” you’re talking about?

        You just wanna virtue signal and shit all over everything cuz you’re an angry little boy.

    2. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily… Read More.

  5. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>>   Detail of work

  6. I think it is important to remember that “property” had two meanings back then, much as “man” has two meanings today.

    This was in the era of property requirements for voting and I believe that people wanted to make it clear that EVERYONE had these rights, not just “Gentlemen” (as was the case in England at the time). Much like we use the term “Human Rights” rather than “Rights of Man” today so as to make it clear that women have them too.

    Like abortion today, slavery was a dual-edge sword because of if “life, liberty, & property” were all God-given rights (that only God could take away) then freeing the slaves would violate the God-given right of “property” — very similar to the Pro Choice argument today.

    There was a proposal that the government buy the slaves and then free them — or ship them back to Africa (that’s how Liberia got founded). It’s interesting how things would have worked out had that been done.

    1. “and then free them — or ship them back to Africa” — or simply kill them [after “due” process, of course]. General Sherman favored that last option — and gave each of his victims the “due” process of a momentary thought — but his successful streak in the matter was stymied by a visit from Washington (which Sherman recounts in his autobiography). Even after Sherman was given a suggestion that outright killing of former slaves might be a naughty thing, he persisted using more subtle methods: a professor of history (I forget her name) in North Carolina has a forthcoming book regarding the use of disease in the killing of freed slaves.

      1. George Washington died in 1799, and the germ theory really wasn’t around until the 1880’s — look at Civil War hospitals.

        1. The knowledge that some diseases were contagious existed for millennia before the germ theory.

      2. “Even after Sherman was given a suggestion that outright killing of former slaves might be a naughty thing, he persisted using more subtle methods: a professor of history (I forget her name) in North Carolina has a forthcoming book regarding the use of disease in the killing of freed slaves.”

        You’re going to have to do better than that if you want to be taken as other than a lefty bullshitter.

  7. The Declaration was much relied upon by Abraham Lincoln

    Especially that time he caused 600,000 deaths in a brutal scorched-earth war that decimated half of the country beyond repair for all eternity so that he could prevent states from withdrawing their “consent of the governed” and “to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”. Let freedom ring baby! Libertarians opposed to self-determination! Sit your ass on your couch with your mandatory mask while you wait for your mandatory vaccine and watch some digital FX fireworks and celebrate your freedom boys and girls!

    1. decimated half of the country beyond repair for all eternity..

    2. You have laid the American Civil War at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, but he did not start the War. The ACW started with the attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederacy. What if that battle had not happened, if the Union and Confederacy had prepared for war, but had also negotiated during this time. Is it possible that the states might have come to some compromise. With the attack by the Confederacy there was no turning back. These states made a bet that the Union would not enter into a war, they were wrong. What more they were over confident in their ability to wag wage. Yes they has the best leader, but nowhere near the resources necessary to carry on a extended war. The attack on Fort Sumter was the start of the ACW and also the end of the Confederacy. The ACW can be laid at the feet of the people of Charleston, NC.

      1. The South would have won had the election been fought in 1820.
        The South failed to realize what 40 years of industrialization had done for the North.

      2. It was still within Lincoln’s power after Fort Sumter to *not* respond in kind. He could have just let them go.

        1. It was their seizure of Federal Property — it was them firing on the US flag. Otherwise, they would have been allowed to leave.

          1. That doesn’t invalidate my statement.

    3. “Decimated half the country”

      Which half? By the way, it hardly rose to the level of decimation. War dead was maybe a bit over 1%…

    4. Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

      Often. Not always. And you’re a dumb fuck.

    5. It’s quite a move to declare the Civil War immoral as you hoist the flag of libertarianism.

      1. First take a look at the Tariff of Abominations and Nullification Crisis. Then go to the Morrill Tariff passed after Lincoln was elected–the one that sparked the secessions in which Texas seized federal armories. The role of slavery remained that of a mercantilist colony. What the Revolution changed was that the Metropole was no longer England but New England. The secessions were the response to protective tariffs that the Revolution was to the Acts of Navigation. Even the Emancipation proclamations in both crises bore similarities.

    6. and then in his address at Gettysburg he turned the Declaration upside down and said it was about centralized control. Could a nation with a strong national government “long endure”? He’s got an army of 175,000 that says it can.

      1. Is that what Lincoln is saying or was he asking if a country funding on Liberty continue or would it just fall apart when it became apparent that that liberty would be extended to more people. The Confederacy was not fighting for liberty, they were fighting to hold people in bondage. No one was going to end slavery, nor were they willing to extend it to other parts of the country. Slave states understood the writing on the wall and were turning their backs on the natural progress of liberty.

    7. But seriously, when war-fighting, it’s not very easy to say when you’ve done *just enough* to win, with no take-backs. “OK, it’s a tie, but you know we can win if we we to. Don’t make us…” really never works.

  8. It is difficult to reconcile the various Declarations of Rights with the ongoing effect of Buck v. Bell (which relied upon Jacobson): while slavery is currently outlawed, genocide remains permissible. Is a noncriminal who is deemed — by a Governor, by a Board, or by a direct vote — to be an unwanted burden or potential risk still endowed by his Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

    There is an argument to be made that the wording of the Williamsburg Declaration of Rights more precisely reflects the actual rights respected by most: a man’s progeny has no right to exist… and genocide requires only “due” process.

    1. “…while slavery is currently outlawed, genocide remains permissible…”

      You have a very active fantasy life. I do NOT want to subscribe to your news letter.

    2. Murder bad. Mass murder worse.

  9. This is really a terrific read, thanks.
    I was not familiar with Corfield although I vaguely remember reading the dispute over the meaning of privileges and immunities when the 14th Amendment was debated.
    As to the civil war: I suggest reading, if you haven’t, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.’s account, “My Hunt After the Captain”, of the aftermath of the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg. Holmes was informed (by telegram) that his son, the famous Supreme Court Justice who was fighting for the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry regiment, had been grievously wounded in the battle. So he left Massachusetts and traveled to Maryland to find him (thus the title of the piece).
    His account of the horrors of seeing young men with missing arms and legs, blinded, is devastating. He wrote that as he got closer to the center of the battlefield the horrors increased – from the slightly wounded on the periphery to the horribly wounded and still dying closer to the battlefield.

  10. It also acknowledged that some people are outside the fold — “mericless Indian Savages” trying to tear down what better people have built.

    1. Yes… “some” people.

      Let’s face it, a bunch of rich white guys were angry because they thought their taxes were too high and they didn’t have enough freedom to steal Native American land, so they started a rebellion with next to no support among the wider population. The only remotely surprising thing about that story is that they pulled it off somehow.

      1. You definitely need to move somewhere not so soaked in Whiteness.

        1. Germany, homeland to his hero?

          1. Hmm, you can’t mean Hitler, or Mozart, or Schwarzenegger, they were all born in Austria. Martinned, is your hero Albert Einstein?

            1. I have no idea what these guys are talking about. Immanuel Kant maybe?

    2. “mericless Indian Savages” trying to tear down what better people have built.

      They were — in both regards.

  11. Read a few of the agreements and oaths between medieval lords and their vassals tell me you wouldn’t prefer those agreements over 1776.

    1. Strange you didn’t cite any.

  12. this almost visceral hatred of the vision of Jefferson and the founders allows an inner view of cultural marxists who have been shopping this crap for 60 years or more from the safe world of the media and academia. It is at heart a direct attack by marxists from central and eastern europe. It is “old world” hatred.

    1. You have to tear down the Founders if you want to build a Marxist state, because despite all their faults, the Founders gave us not a free country, but the freest country the world has every known. And it worked, to create prosperity unrivaled in human history.

      But freedom also allows men and women with talent and vision to accrue the rewards of their efforts, giving the Marxists an easy target for envy and greed to bring everyone down to the same level, everyone except the ruling class naturally.

      1. the freest country the world has every known

        That reminds me, I have a bridge you might like to buy. I’ll do you a good deal!


    2. It’s purely euupeanized snobbism, which always makes me wonder how so many blacks could prescribe to it. Following the teachings of a white Jewish European man? Talk about your Uncle Toms.

  13. Before the Declaration there were the Articles of Association: The Continental Congress passed on October 20, 1774 the Articles of Association, sometimes also called the Continental Association. It contains this following text: (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Continental_Association)
    “2. That we will neither import nor purchase any Slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”
    Just think, why would the progressive historians keep on erasing and erasing and erasing our history? If you erase enough of this, you can make anybody into a racist. The progressive historians benefit from book burning or the closest alternative. Then they can remake history in their own image. *** I found this on Progressingamerica, the only non-hypocritical conservative blog I know of.

  14. America is a story of great, egalitarian ideals, and very slowly and stumblingly managing to align with them.

    We’re not there yet, but we’re better than we’ve ever been.

    1. After we got the original inhabitants out of the way, of course. Seems like the American Indian tribes are the ones with a case to be made for reparations.

      1. You should see what they do to indigenous people in Canada. Haiti has a higher quality if life. But, hey, canada is “socialist” and so they’re cool.

  15. Can we take it all back and do what Canada did instead? We’re so excitable down here. War this war that. God save the Queen, I say.

    1. Said the queen.

    2. Most liberal Americans want desparately to be Europeans. Canada is the next best thing I suppose, effete socialism without the cramped quarters.

  16. The Declaration said you could secede if things got bad enough. Until Lincoln said it didn’t.

  17. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page.Click For Full Details.

  18. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
    Heres what I’ve been doing…  ,,, ONLINE WORK

  19. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
    Heres what I’ve been doing… ,,, workstoday

  20. It’s nearly impossible to find well-informed people in this particular topic, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about!


Please to post comments