
Other times, they're just pretentious twits.
If Joseph Ellis suggested the headline for his article - well, he's both. I'm going to go with a working hypothesis of too into the weeds.
Why the Fourth Is a Fraud.
Here's the money grafs:
Why, then, did July 4 become the preferred date for our annual celebration? Well, although nothing momentous occurred on that day, it was the day when the American public first learned about the Declaration. Copies began to appear in newspapers and go up on tavern walls, although in fact it took several weeks for the news to reach all precincts up and down the coast. The deeper truth is that the declaring of American independence was a drawn-out process without a clear-cut crescendo moment. July 4 was an arbitrary choice, but the new nation needed a birthday, and it made as much historical sense as several other alternatives.
This somewhat problematic resolution received a providential endorsement that clinched the case exactly 50 years later. For on July 4, 1826, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of one another. They were the two most influential figures in crafting and then defending the language of the Declaration, and in a scene that no novelist would dare to make up, they both died on schedule. Jefferson’s last recorded words were, “Is it the Fourth?”
Whatever lingering doubts remained about the appropriateness of the date dissolved right then. If it was good enough for Adams and Jefferson, it was good enough for America. It has remained so ever since.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
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:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
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.
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.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat 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.
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.
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.
Many Americans still felt a kinship with the people of Great Britain, and had appealed in vain to the prominent among them, as well as to Parliament, to convince the King to relax his more objectionable policies toward the colonies. The next section represents disappointment that these attempts had been unsuccessful.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British 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.
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.
Now. Back to Mr. Ellis, and his problem with weeds. Mr. Ellis observes... "Well, although nothing momentous occurred on that day, it was the day when the American public first learned about the Declaration."
Take a look at the very first line of the Declaration, Mr. Ellis. The Signers might disagree with your assertion that nothing momentous occurred that day. That *was* the date they chose to put on the document. Seems to me that trumps your somewhat fatuous attempt to generate a "new angle" for the holiday.
Okay - back away from the computer and go do something to celebrate the day!



Personally, I'd call that a momentous occasion.
Just one more area in which Ellis and I diverge...
I think he should be embarassed, the entire article is based on the fact that he has NEVER seen the ACTUAL text of the Declaration (or simply glazed over it when shown, probably sometime in the HS)
And, John, I LOVE the picture!
Or even better at mine where the censor is why, me!
Lady, I noted the quotation marks, but your question itself, is very profound. this is the reason for the split in the answer.
I must admit, I read quite a few blogs, including yours. but I only comment on a few.
Thank you, Cassandra, for your service to all of us.
The problem with historians is they have to put food on the table like everyone else. Ideally they do so by providing us with as complete and useful a view of the past as possible, which we buy in one sense or another because we're interested. Interested in not repeating mistakes, interested in learning smart techniques, interested in the honour of the past feeding into the present and so on.
But as so many of us (by which I mean Americans and in my case Aussies) have lost interest and turned to want the sensational and that which justifies our own views, historians who do the above are dying out. The replacement has to be more of a media whore. This guy appears to have done just that. The obvious way to sensationalise something like July the 4th is to claim it's not July the 4th. Then he bumbles along like a halocaust denialist with things made up and with twisted context.
I commend any historians and refuse to sully their hard work by lumping them with this sensationalist. The sad thing is there's probably a good article about the delays and timing in there if only he'd the skill to make it happen.
But, there's stuffs I noticed in my growing up years that might be viable in relation to the issue in this thread.
Teachers who teach narrative intensive issues, such as history (by narrative I mean subjects that are word based rather than math based or structure based like grammar) tend to need to use a bit of circular thinking.
A teacher, or historian, can only go over the same issue so many time before it stops making sense in much the same way a word will render itself down to meaningless noise if repeated a 1000 times. So, divergent threads are sought out, both for the sanity of the teacher/historian and for the benefit of the students/audience.
Those teachers/historians with the proper skill set will follow that thread and work it around and bring it back up into context with the whole pattern. This I think of as lateral circle think. It's a good thing.
But, those without the proper skill set will follow the thread and bring it back up but not all the way. They'll stop and attach their thinking on the subject to another piece of divergence before reaching the top of the loop. This ends up in a form of circle thought that spirals downward and loses ever more touch with context with each descending loop. This is a bad thing.
There's also the problem of intellectual inbreeding. Halfwit snarks and twits tend to use other halfwit snarks and twits as their applause meter/sounding boards. Such intellectually inbred specimens are only readable and appreciable by others such as themselves. This can become an ever more isolated process, like a village lost in the mountains with only 2 or 3 families breeding among themselves for 10s of generations.
It was on television last night, and I enjoyed reinforcing my view of our foundational mythology once again!
At first glance I thought he was saying "Personally, I recall that as a momentous occasion." and I thought "WOW! The Chief really *is* older than dirt!"
"1776" the musical, is one of the most fabulous tools for sparking interest in young people who aren't into history. I have it on tape and DVD and would play it every 3rd for the kids that would hang at my house (first my sister's friends and then my children's friends) while we prepared for the 4th of July.
One of my sister's friends will tell you that he got an extra credit question much to the astonishment of his jaded history teacher. He named the members of the Declaration Committee by letting the lyrics to a song run through his head.
Sure it is filled with oversimplification - there is a line that pokes fun at that very idea. In the movie Adams' character says -
"I won't be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them- Franklin, Washington, and the horse- conducted the entire revolution by themselves"
It's human nature to want to tie our history up into nice neat packages - but -
Did you not come away from that film with the feeling that the country was torn? That was true.
Did you not feel that Adams and his wife had an extraordinary bond and that their correspondence kept them as close as if they were physically together? That was true.
Did you not feel that these men sensed the incredible importance and danger of what they were doing? That was true.
Can you tell I am a huge fan of this movie? LOL Adams is my favorite President.
I think Ellis has just never been invited to a really great 4th of July party and this post is sour grapes.
I was there when it was Bunker Mountain. I was a lumberjack in the Sahara Forest. I remember when they were still building the *Second* Wonder of the Ancient World. I ran the Ditch Witch when we dug the Grand Canyon. I built a boat so I could sail the Four Seas.
Bite me.
Back to the Declaration of Independence: Time was, when most Fourth of July celebrations at the town level included a reading of it, and school children memorized it and the Preamble to the Constitution, and were given pocket copies of it.
As to age, didn't Maggie give Bill the recipe for dirt?
*running very very fast and giggling madly, since I was on the bukkit brigade when Mt. Rainier last erupted.*
*snort* :)
<i>Thank you, Cassandra, for your service to all of us.</i>
*Blush*
Man, oh man. I will be walking on air for the rest of the week. I get frustrated a lot by blogging, but I suspect I get far more out of it than any of the poor folks who suffer through my posts :)
Still, thank you. That was very kind of you and very much appreciated.
Heh. A thinly-veiled excuse to not blog for the rest of the week...!