Common Sense (January 10, 1776) (Redux)

Belongs here.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Declaration Of The Second Continental Congress (July 6, 1775)

John Hancock.  In the beginning, our ancestors moved to America seeking to establish a new life for themselves, securing in the most radical way possible their own liberty.  The system worked for a long, long time, to the enormous benefit of those on both sides of the ocean.  And the benefit was never more obvious than during the recent French and Indian War, when the contributions of the colonists won the day for the Empire.  But since that moment, and the transfer of power to the new regime, we have struggled beneath a more and more oppressive yoke.

Long list of grievances:

• Monetary manipulation
• Foreign courts and deprivation of trial by jury
• Suspending local governments
• Restrictive trade rules
• Encouraging an enemy state in Canada [heh]
• Worst of all, for passing a a statue giving parliament the right to "make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever," an unlimited assertion of power that cannot stand.

Our petitions have gone unheeded byt he Crown.  When we resisted, the Empire responded with military coercion and force.  The aggression has come to a head at the recent battles at Lexington and Concord, where the British soldiers were ultimately "compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression." [Hells yeah]

Confiscation of arms and the establishment of martial law in Boston hasn't helped matters.

Our choice is stark: slavery, or resistance by force.

Our cause is just.  Our union is perfect.  Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtably attainable.  We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present streangth, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves.  With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Note: we still pledge our allegiance to the Crown, if the current difficulty can be overcome.  We only fight for our rights as free men.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death (March 23, 1775)

Patrick Henry.  Basically a response to the members of the Virginia Convention who urged restraint, patience, and prudence in dealing with the English.  Henry claimed that the English continually offered platitudes of concession while strenghening their grip on the colonies more and more.  Worse, this pattern had continued for ten years now, with no end in sight.  Worse yet, it was now obvious that the English were preparing militarily to put a stop to any colonial uprising once and for all.  With any delay, English subjugation of the colonies would be permanent.

Essentially, Patrick Henry is the hawk to end all hawks, and he's had it with the doves.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun!  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand we here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 Of course, he had practiced that line before.

Speech On The Stamp Act (January 14, 1766)

A rebuttal against the imposition of the Stamp Act on the American colonies, by member of Parliament William Pitt.  I'm reading it out of order with the others because this jerk from Georgia Tech told me it happened in 1775.

Standard boilerplate arguments at this point, focusing on the injustice of imposing taxes on colonial subjects without representation, and on the economic benefits of the trade relationship on its own.

I'd skip over it completely, except this passage is amazing:

I maintain, that the parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America.  Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme.  when it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to seel his lands, if he can, and embark for that country.  When two countries are connected together, like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern; the greater must rule the less; but so rule it, as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both.  If the gentleman does not understand the difference between external and internal taxes, I cannot help it; but there is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purpose of raising a revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accomodation of the subject; although, in the consequences, some revenue might incidentally arise from the latter.

It's confusing because his audience already knows what he's talking about, and I can't tell the difference between the internal and external taxes, and the difference between the revenue tax and the regulation tax, and which one he's supporting.  But he seems to be saying that Parliament's power to regulate commerce in the colonies is unlimited, while its power to tax is restricted by constitutional restraints.  And he's encouraging Parliament, if they must get there hands dirty in the affairs of the Americans, to do it through the legitimate regulation channels instead of the illegitimate taxation channels.

My mind is reeling.

The takeaway is that power will find whatever justification is at hand for the aggrandizement of that power.  And those of us who think there are rules by which we can trust to avoid imposed mandates from our political representatives are mistaken.  The game is rigged.  There's always room for more.

Declaration Of The First Continental Congress (October 1774)

This is a legal document, which makes it a pain in the ass to read.  Essentially a listing of grievances and violations of rights, with a promise to return to peaceful and happy relations if the situation is rectified.  Perhaps most important, it reiterates the need for all Legislative power within the colonies to reside within the colonies-- as once again, true represenation in Parliament is currently lacking and impossible anyway.  The Crown would have the authority to dictate some international economic agreements, but that's it.  Independence is on its way.

Many of the complaints worked their way into the Bill of Rights-- specifically, the quartering of soldiers, the right to a fair and local trial by jury, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition for the redress of grievances.  Most complaints are referred to specific Acts of Parliament that must be redressed.

There were three acts specifically levied against the "province of Massachusetts-bay".  No wonder they moved the whole thing to Philadelphia.

And again, one of the complaints was the establishment of the "Roman Catholic Religion in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger, from so great a dissimilarity of Religion, law, and government, of the neighboring British colonies by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France."  Did we give Quebec back to France after the war as a consolation prize?  And c'mon, guys, we mean you no harm.  Simmer down.

The Rights Of The Colonists (November 20, 1772)

Ben Franklin, summarizing the current state of the colonies, as an introduction to the resolution for the English public at large:

The colonists have grown accustomed to being left alone, and so appreciated the flexible arrangement with the English Crown that they had adopted many English customs and adapted to many English requests.  The Stamp Act, however, ruined the comity, and the colonists responded with a general boycott.  The repeal of the Stamp Act, save for the tax on tea, was met with the end of the boycott, save on tea-- and even that was expected to be resolved soon.

The imposition of the English bureaucracy in establishing this one rule, however, grew so intrusive that more forceful responses were required.  An enormous black market developed whereby French and Dutch tea is drunk nearly exclusively in the colonies.  The loss of benefits to the Crown are enormous-- and for what?  Simply selling English tea to the colonists ought to be beneficial enough, and yet they are put upon to the breaking point.

This nation, and the other nations of Europe, may thereby learn, with more certainty, the grounds of a dissension that possibly may, sooner or later, have consequences interesting to them all.

Sam Adams:

The rights of the colonists begin with the natural rights of all men, as expressed (nearly word for word-- including the phrase "life, liberty, and property") by John Locke.  Civil society is a ceding of some of these natural rights-- with the consent of the governed-- to a civil authority.  And as long as men aren't complled to remain in the society against their will, this is all fine.

One of the most important natural rights that must in all cases be protected by civil society is the right to freely worship as one sees fit.  (Except in the case of the Papists, of course.  The problem there, apparently, is that when the religious authority excommunicated a political leader from the Church, it also forced his removal from civil office.  This cannot stand.  [I agree.])

The civil leaders work for the people.  They are very much like employees.  So the greatest injustice is done when one of these leaders aggrandizes himself financially or by usurping additional power, and thereby establishes tyranny.  He would do this thinking is has some special ability to exert civil authority that the entire remainder of the public lacks.  He is mistaken-- many, many others could do the job well.  There is no shortage of decent representatives.

This grand agreement has been codified in the Magna Charta for centuries.

In the case of the American colonies, they of course possess all the natural rights of man.  And this includes the right to establish for their own society a Legislative power-- including the restriction that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people."

Given all this, the British House of Commons can have no legitimate authority over the colonists.  First, the colonists are not currently represented there.  And second, it is impossible that they could be properly represented there.  The population is too large for the tiny representation the House would be willing to allow.  Moreover, "[h]ad the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there."  The situation, then, is ripe for abuse, and treachery.  "The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances.  How long such treatement will or ought to be borne, is submitted."

-----------------------


The Revolution is already baked into the cake.  There is no getting around it.

The English bureaucracy charged with enforcing the Stamp Act/Tea Act are the SEC and EPA rolled into one.

It is still true that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people."  But it apparently has the power to tax to its heart's content, so long as it remains representative.  Sigh.

The word Papists makes me giggle every time I see it.

Resolutions Of The Stamp Act Congress (October 19, 1765)

No taxation without representation!

-------------------------

The language is exceedingly polite, and the entire argument is delivered explicitly from their recognized status as subjects of the British Crown.  C'mon guys, flip the king the bird!

The seeds of independence are already sown, however, as they hint that representation in Parliament is nigh impossible.

That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.

Even this early, all of the arguments are couched in terms of securing the "rights and liberties" to which they are entitled.  Idle thought: have we gone astray by bleating about freedom all the time instead of liberty?  "Freedom" has the connotation, for me at least, of a bird in flight, entirely unbound.  This is the image attached to FDR's invocation of positive rights: freedom from "the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment."  "Liberty", on the other hand, connotes self-direction, but makes no promises against the entirely natural slings and arrows of life.  "Pursuit of happiness" indeed.  These guys were good.

I like the argument that the Crown was already profiting enormously from their trade with the colonists, and that any taxation on that commerce would only lessen the benefits already enjoyed.  The Laffer curve lives!