It’s the Fourth of July. It’s time for our yearly patriotic message. And this year, my message is: Maybe this country was a mistake.
Why? Because this country was founded for a reason. Not just an abstraction of “freedom” or “liberty” but an attempt to create such in the face of a historical context in which a previous standard of freedom and liberty were threatened by the arrogance of a remote government. The United States of America is now 244 years old. And in this year it is now further away from the principle behind the Declaration of Independence than ever and closer than ever to being the servile colonial state that it was before 1775.
And it would serve well to use Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence to demonstrate the issue. For now, put aside the whole issue of whether the whole Revolution is invalidated by slavery or whether Jefferson himself (as opposed to Yankee Founders) is invalidated by being a slave owner. The premise of our revolution was that we were our own country, not merely someone else’s colony, and that our rights are universal and inherent, and that we had a right to rebel because the government abused its powers and denied our equal rights. The premise of our Constitution is that once we had achieved independence, we had to create a republic not only to protect our sovereignty but to protect the general welfare. By comparison to our Founders’ stated reasons for creating this country, where is America now in terms of freedom?
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
In Congress, July 4, 1776.
“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, 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.
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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –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.”
Again, don’t focus too much on the inherent contradiction of a slaveholder declaring “all men are created equal” or whether rights are endowed by God. At this point, I will say that the premise of the paragraph is that Jefferson was declaring “self-evident” something that many did not see as self-evident, that at least all white men are created equal, which was revolutionary enough, given that it meant that a British “noble” has no greater inherent worth than a commoner, and that people from Europe do not have greater inherent worth than white Americans (especially since in other American colonies the caste system was even more formalized).
As for the “Creator” I will say that it speaks to the inherent contradiction, especially with modern “conservatives” who insist that rights are endowed by God: I find it interesting that the people who most loudly insist that rights are endowed by a Creator are ones most uncomfortable with the “all men are created equal” part. Given that religion has been invoked on both sides of the debate, it undermines the idea that religion is an objective source of moral values. But even if Jefferson was asserting a moral value inconsistently or hypocritically, he WAS asserting a moral value. It holds as a universal principle even if it is not applied universally. And in this particular year, as in the time of the Civil War, the challenge to the universal principle is from those sections of the country that think that freedom means only freedom for them.
And that faction is the one supporting the direct threats to freedom that we face now.
“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. 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. “
In other words, one does not change the national government lightly or for trivial reasons. Even such problems as exist with the current government are usually preferable to throwing it out. But when “a long train of abuses and usurpations” clearly intends to create an intolerable despotism, overthrowing such is not only a human right but a duty.
“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 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. “
Having established that one only removes a government for valid reasons, we come to the question: What are our reasons for removing ourselves from the current government? Those reasons follow.
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
At this point in the 18th Century, Parliament was not effectively supreme over the British Monarchy and it was possible for King George to step in to create his own policies, especially where the colonies were concerned. In this system, we technically have an independent legislature, but for all the bills that are passed by the Democrat-majority House of Representatives, few if any are passed by the Republican Senate, because Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is given effective control of the legislative process. This is not something that the current president is actively involved in, but McConnell would be unlikely to pursue a legislative course without the Republican president’s assent.
“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.”
Donald Trump has specifically threatened the State of Nevada (among others) by withholding federal funds because he says voting by mail is “illegal” (it’s not) thereby denying our own right to representation without succumbing to blackmail over already allocated funds.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.”
Again, we have a complaint which is not directly relevant to the current situation as it concerns administration of an overseas colony rather than domestic policy. There are still parallels. I will address them later.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”
The focus, maybe the raison d’etre, of the Trump Republican Party is “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners” and refusing to allow any to come into the country. Except of course, during the initial stages of the coronavirus, when Trump knew that coronavirus had spread to Italy and other parts of Europe, yet only declared a travel ban from Europe more than five weeks after announcing a travel ban from China.
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
The politicization of judicial appointments under both parties has become that much more blatant under Republicans, which is another case where Mitch McConnell takes the initiative when Donald Trump doesn’t. It was of course McConnell who refused to have the Senate address President Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, thus not only acting as a veto on the president but on McConnell’s entire chamber. Since being elected president, Trump has made a point of choosing judges only from a Federalist Society approved list, and at lower levels, Trump, with help from McConnell’s Senate, has appointed almost 30 percent of our active circuit court judges in less than four years.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”
This ties into “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.” The Trump Organization has become rather infamous for the number of federal offices it has chosen to leave open or with only “active” heads, even though most bureaucracies have to have their administration heads approved by Congress. By this means Trump is able to create a situation where he does in fact administer by decree, since there is no oversight approval, and such “acting” heads can be fired at will. Earlier this year, he criticized pro forma Senate sessions (which were intended by Republicans to limit Barack Obama’s ability to make recess appointments) and said, “The Senate should either fulfill its duty and vote on my nominees or it should formally adjourn so that I can make recess appointments. If the House will not agree to that adjournment, I will exercise my constitutional authority to adjourn both chambers.”
Of course, Trump, unlike Mitch McConnell, always says the quiet part loud.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:”
Especially in the wake of George Floyd’s death, the American public is coming to grips with the militarization of many police departments, which implies a larger militarization of the civil society. One of the steps Trump took in reaction to riots that disturbed even some in Middle America was to have our national monuments occupied by masked, armed men with no unit insignia. In a Politico article about that subject, it was mentioned in passing that “Every year since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has added to its policing ranks a force larger than the entire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”
It has already been mentioned with the concept of qualified immunity, police departments are in effect given permission to commit acts (including killing) which would guarantee prosecution were they committed by civilians. This is why Black Lives Matter and other groups have demanded that the federal government act to ban qualified immunity. Democrats included such a ban in recent legislation, but refused to vote for a Republican Senate bill that did not include the ban.
This is to say nothing of Trump’s own attempts to render “his” troops unaccountable. The most notorious example is the case of Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who had been charged with ten offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for among other things murdering an ISIS prisoner in custody, taking a photo of the corpse and sending it to friends. This was the one charge he was actually convicted of. Since Gallagher had already served the stated amount of time on his sentence, he was released. However, Donald Trump personally intervened to insure that Gallagher’s pre-discharge rank be reinstated (to protect his retirement benefits) and that his SEAL pin be restored, against the verdict in the court martial.
Make no mistake: If he had his way, Donald Trump WOULD run everything by fiat. And if you are voting for Donald Trump, you, like the Republicans who acquitted him in the Senate, are voting to approve conduct that Thomas Jefferson thought was tyrannical and worthy of revolution. You are working against everything Jefferson wanted to achieve.
“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”
On this score, I refer to the libertarian argument: A tariff is a tax on the consumer.
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
This part, unfortunately, has less to do with Donald Trump in particular and more to do with the general trend of government under both parties, a trend where Donald Trump is more a symptom than a cause. In the wake of our “War on Terror”, both the Bush and Obama Administrations were criticized for the practice of “extraordinary rendition” where the US government arranged for or accommodated the transfer of suspects to countries outside the United States, where torture is specifically illegal and “enhanced interrogation” techniques can be investigated.
Similarly, it was under the Obama Administration that there was a drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, an American expatriate who advocated for jihad in Yemen. When Awlaki was killed in 2011, he became the first US citizen to be targeted by drone strike, effectively execution without trial.
This is the sort of thing that libertarians have been going on about for years. But if there was reason to criticize a government that abandoned the principles of our founding simply out of expedience or neglect, the danger is that much greater when the people in charge of government are deliberately acting against that principle because they are against the principles of our founding.
“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
As with many Trump initiatives, the current president may not have actively declared war, but he has withdrawn protection and aid, not only in the general case of the coronavirus but in the specific case of Puerto Rico, which is not a State but whose residents ARE American citizens. This has had the effect of ravaging the coasts, towns and livelihoods of that people.
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat [sic] the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.”
In context, this refers to King George’s recruitment of mercenaries from Hesse (Germany) and other areas to suppress the already active American rebellion. The Republicans’ corps of mercenaries are homegrown.
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
[Okay, this is the part that hasn’t aged well, college kids.]
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish [sic] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”
In the 18th Century, there was technically a means of redress of colonists’ grievance through the British Parliament, which is why the Founders had at first tried to make their case to the British government rather than advocate for radical separatism. But the Parliament was partisan for Britain, with only a few exceptions. This in itself was a cause for alienation from the mother country.
Similarly there is a mechanism in the Constitution for removing an unfit chief executive, called impeachment, but just as the ruling class of Britain decided that their job was to protect their own and not the people of the Colonies, the Republican majority in Senate of the United States decided that its goal was to protect their own rather than the country. And just as Parliament’s alienation from the Americans served to alienate this nation from the mother country, the Republican Party’s choice of sides has served to further alienate them from America. Especially since every thing that Donald Trump has done to America since the end of impeachment is something that Republicans were warned about. In acting to protect Trump, they took on responsibility for his actions, and in choosing Party over country, chose to antagonize the country.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. “
And how well did that work out?
For the most part, very well. Again, however hypocritical and self-serving it was for white colonials to insist that only all (white) men are created equal, that was a revolutionary declaration for the time. The American Revolution was a direct inspiration for the black people of Haiti and the white Hispanic revolutions in Spanish America. It also set a precedent for the more radical French Revolution, which created its own changes to the structure of Europe, even as Britain’s Parliament passed reforms and became a more democratic body. As with the contradiction of American slavery, Western civilization’s conquest and exploitation of the rest of the world also spread its liberal ideas to other lands and demanded a resolution of the contradiction, which ended Europe’s colonial empires.
None of which changes the fact that we have lived in contradiction from the beginning, a contradiction that caused many white Americans, including those whose ancestors came here after the Civil War, to think that a declaration of freedom for white men meant ONLY freedom for white men. We have survived this long because we have basically agreed to disagree. We have passed incremental reforms to voting laws and acclimated people to the idea of equality for different races and genders.
The problem is not with the people who critique this government because it is untrue to the classical liberal ideas of its foundation. That has always been the libertarian and conservative critique, alongside the leftist arguments that Jefferson was self-serving or didn’t go far enough. The immediate threat to America is not conservative but reactionary; it is from the people who do not simply disagree as to the ultimate meaning of Jefferson’s words, but who are against Jefferson’s declaration itself. The threat to America is from the people whose concept of good government is regressed even further back than King George, whose ideal is not parliamentary monarchy but absolute monarchy. And review of Jefferson’s grievances from 1776 only makes it more clear that for all the progress we have made, we are ending up in much the same situation.
So this year especially, I have to ask: What is the point of America?
What was the point of our Revolution?
What was the point of all this if you want to go back to a tyranny that even the British themselves would not tolerate in their modern government?
If your whole concept of patriotism is “America Fuck Yeah” (unironically) or “Trump That Bitch”, then you really need to look at our founding documents and ask yourself if you would have chosen the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson or the madness of King George.