Jill Lepore to Lecture Tonight at 7:00pm, Eastern Nazarene College

.
The Eastern Nazarene College History Department will present a lecture by Harvard University historian Jill Lepore at 7 p.m., Thursday, November 18, in Shrader Lecture Hall (23 East Elm Ave, Quincy, Mass). The lecture is free and the public is invited to attend.

Titled “Poor Richard’s Poor Jane,” Lepore’s talk will be based on her forthcoming biography of Benjamin Franklin and his sister, Jane Mecom.

Lepore is the author of New York Burning: Liberty and Slavery in an Eighteenth-Century City, The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity, which won the Bancroft Prize, A is for American: Letters and Other Characters in the Newly United States and, most recently, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle over American History. Lepore has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, and the Los Angeles Times.

The ENC History Department Public Lecture Series is made possible by the support of ENC alumni.

The Declaration of Independence

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 to 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 shown 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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration 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 harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to 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 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 offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in 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, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and 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 endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is 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.

Nor have we been wanting in attention 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 the 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.

The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence

This Sunday, July 4th, we will once again celebrate our nation’s founding, marking the day in 1776 that the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence.


The Declaration of Independence was intended to be an official statement explaining why the 13 American colonies had declared their independence from Great Britain. In the years following its passage, however, this statement of principles about the rights of man grew to mean much more.

America became the only country in history founded, as Leo Strauss explained, “in explicit opposition to Machiavellian principles,” by which he meant crass, power politics. Instead, America was founded on a set of clearly expressed “self-evident” truths. Thomas Jefferson said the Declaration was “intended to be an expression of the American mind,” and indeed, no document since has so succinctly and so eloquently spelled out the spirit of America.

Our country has evolved out of the timeless truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence to develop a distinct character and set of values that distinguishes us from even other Western democracies.

This holiday, it is worth taking a look at how several key phrases from the Declaration of Independence have served as definitional statements about the aspirations of America, and how those words of our Founding Fathers’ have affected America in the 234 years since they were written.

“…all men are created equal”
The Founding Fathers who authored the Declaration were the first people in the history of the world ever to express our natural equality as a principle of government in such an unqualified way. Though neither the Constitution that followed nor the Founders personally quite fulfilled the promise of those words, it has since been the project of our country to accomplish them.
America came though to recognize that we are not all literally equal—we are born with different capabilities and attributes, and to different stations in life—the words of the founders capture the truth that we must treat each other as equals. We are “created equal” in the sense that all men (and, we now recognize, all women) have the same natural rights, granted to them by God. We are all the same under the law.
This powerful statement of universal rights was used by abolitionists as a moral cudgel to rid the United States of slavery, an institution explicitly at odds with the truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln consistently evoked the phrase in his famous Peoria speech against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and later during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. As President, Lincoln again included the phrase in the Gettysburg Address as the moral underpinning by which the union should be rededicated. Later, during the women’s suffrage movement and civil rights struggles of the 1960s, leaders such as Martin Luther King used the powerful phrase as a reminder to America that separate (treating people differently under the law based on their race) was not equal.

Leaders such as Lincoln and King believed that as America’s founding political document, the Declaration of Independence is our moral guide with which to interpret the Constitution. They saw that we cannot divorce the law from the moral underpinnings that legitimize it.

But by what authority does that moral underpinning exist?

“…endowed by their Creator”

The core contention of the Declaration of Independence and the principle of natural rights upon which America was founded is that there is a higher moral order upon which the laws of man must be based. The Declaration asserts the existence of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” which had a clear meaning in 18th Century England and America. It referred to the will of God as displayed by the natural order of the world.

John Locke, who was widely read by the leaders of colonial America, wrote in his Second Treatise on Government: “Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule of all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must ... be conformable to the law of nature, i.e., to the will of God.”

William Blackstone, who was arguably the single greatest influence on the creation of the American legal system, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England, “As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should at all points conform to his maker’s will.”

America’s founding was heavily influenced by the English and Scottish enlightenment, which specifically included a space for God and religion in its conceptions of rights, freedom and human reason. This gave the American Revolution a distinctly different character than the French Revolution, which in its most radical phase sought freedom by casting off all authority and remnants of the existing order -- especially God.

In the American formulation as declared by our founders, man’s rights come from God, not from man’s ability to “reason” them into existence. Man does not depend on government to grant him rights through a bureaucratic process, but instead to secure those rights that have been granted to him by God.

In other words, power comes from God, to you, which is then loaned to government.

Thus, the Declaration states, “That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The English and Scottish enlightenment’s conscious inclusion of a space for God and religion had another key influence on the American system of government. Whereas the French Revolution believed it could create a “new man” through government education and indoctrination, the American Founding Fathers had a profound sense of the fallen nature of man. Thus, they created a system of checks and balances that would serve as a restraint on those in power.

“…the pursuit of happiness”

Here again we see the influence of the English and Scottish enlightenment on the Founding Fathers. For writers such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson, the term “happiness” meant something close to “wisdom and virtue.” It did not mean hedonism or other shallow pleasures as the term is too often confused to mean today.

It is also essential to note that the Declaration does not say that we have a right to have happiness provided to us. It says we have the right to pursue happiness – an active verb. As I point out in jest to audiences in my speeches, the Declaration says nothing about a right to redistribution of happiness. It says nothing about happiness stamps. It does not say some people can be too happy and that government should make them less happy out of a sense of fairness.
The Founding Fathers understood that government could not give people happiness, that it was instead up to government to create an environment where the people could best work to achieve their dreams. As AEI’s Arthur Brooks has pointed out, polls of wealthy and successful people show that the harder one works for that success, the greater happiness one derives from it.

America is a land where through hard work, determination, and entrepreneurialism, people can achieve their big dreams. The right of “the pursuit of happiness” spelled out in the Declaration is a definitional statement about the nature of America that has attracted people from all over the world to come here to pursue those dreams.

Who We Are This July 4th

A bedrock belief of American conservatism is a respect for the established traditions and values of American culture. Conservatives believe from the time the first colonists landed in Jamestown, America took on a unique culture and set of values that have set us apart from our European cousins: a belief in natural rights, strong religious faith and values, the importance of the work ethic, and a spirit of community that manifests itself in a belief in limited government and strong civic participation. It is this set of beliefs – truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – that have made America so successful, and they deserve to be protected.

The modern Left – what I describe in my book To Save America as a “secular-socialist machine” – is using every lever of power at its disposal to dismantle our unique American civilization and replace it with a secular, bureaucratic culture in which government is big, citizens are small, and our rights are defined by the state rather than endowed by our Creator. Equality under the law is being discarded in favor of equality of results; consent of the governed is being subverted by an increasingly overbearing federal bureaucracy and imperial judiciary; and the pursuit of happiness is being undermined by a redistributive welfare state that kills the can-do, entrepreneurial spirit of America.
This July 4th, I hope you will take time to read the Declaration of Independence and consider the truths about our rights and freedoms contained within. I hope you will take time to appreciate the sacrifices made by the founding generation and generations since to secure our liberty.
But most of all, I hope you will take time to appreciate the greatness of America and how hard we must be willing to work to preserve that which makes it so special.
Happy Independence Day.
 
WRITTEN BY: Newt Gingrich and original article available by clicking on the title of this blog entry

July 4, 1826

Randall Stephens

It was fifty years to the day after the 13 colonies declared independence from Great Britain.

President John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary about the festivities in Washington. "The volunteer companies assembled on the square," he observed, "fronting the house and paid the passing salute by marching through the yard."

Arriving at the door of the Capitol, I was there met by Mr. Anderson, the Comptroller, with whom we entered the hall of the House of Representatives. The Reverend Mr. Ryland made an introductory prayer.

Joseph Anderson, the Comptroller, read the Declaration of Independence; Walter Jones delivered an oration commemorative of the fiftieth anniversary; the Reverend Mr. Post, Chaplain of H. R. U. S., made a concluding prayer.

After which, Governor Barbour delivered an address to the citizens assembled, soliciting subscriptions for the relief of Mr. Jefferson. . .

News traveled slowly over bad roads. Members of congress knew of Jefferson's troubles, but the severity of his situation was unclear. Few could have guessed that Jefferson's one-time rival and on-again/off-again friend John Adams was also in his last throes. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on that hot July day.

Four days later John Quincy received a batch of letters. One brought bad news. A missive "from my brother, written on the morning of the 4th, announcing that, in the opinion of those who surrounded my father's couch, he was rapidly sinking; that they were sending an express for my son in Boston, who might perhaps arrive in time to receive his last breath. The third was from my brother's wife to her daughter Elizabeth to the same purport, and written in much distress." On his way north to Boston, while in Waterloo, MD, he heard that his father had died. It was July 9th. He was stricken with grief. "My father had nearly closed the ninety-first year of his life," he confided to his diary, "a life illustrious in the annals of his country and of the world."

He had served to great and useful purpose his nation, his age, and his God. He is gone, and may the blessing of Almighty Grace have attended him to his account! I say not, May my last end be like his!—it were presumptuous. The time, the manner, the coincidence with the decease of Jefferson, are visible and palpable marks of Divine favor, for which I would humble myself in grateful and silent adoration before the Ruler of the Universe. For myself, all that I dare to ask is, that I may live the remnant of my days in a manner worthy of him from whom I came, and, at the appointed hour of my Maker, die as my father has died, in peace with God and man, sped to the regions of futurity with the blessings of my fellow-men.

Plenty of Americans in 1826 had something to say about the death of two lions of the Revolution. Prone to view the world through the eyes of faith, and to read signs in the sky and on the ground, newspaper editors, clergy, and laypeople were astounded. On July 11 the Massachusetts Salem Gazette lamented "We know not in what language to express ourselves in announcing . . . another event which has transpired to render the late glorious anniversary, the national jubilee, in some respects the most memorable day in the history of our country." That was no hollow encomium. It rang true across the young nation. The New York Commercial Advertiser rhapsodized: "it seems as though Divine Providence had determined that the spirits of these great men, which were kindled at the same altar, and glowed with the same patriotic fervor . . . should be united in death, and travel into the unknown regions of eternity together!"

Some years back Margaret P. Battin wrote in Historically Speaking about the strange coincidence of Jefferson's and Adam's deaths on the same day. "Although the fact that Adams and Jefferson died the same day is taught to practically every schoolchild, asking why is not," Battin noted. "What could explain this? There are at least six principal avenues to explore, but all of them raise further issues." She then offered some of the explanations given over the ages for their demise on that same anniversary.

It makes me wonder about the comparison and contrast between our age and the beginning of the Jacksonian era. Do Americans now have similar ideas linking nation, patriotism, and providence? Do Americans esteem their leaders and the political giants of our day in any way like they did 184 years ago? How have citizens understood God and country from one era to the next?

Freedom of Speech

Does the U.S. Constitution protect your right to say anything you want, whenever you want, anywhere you want? Some people think that it indeed does, or that if it doesn't allow that, it should. But most understand that while we are free to speak our minds most times, there are limits. You can't just yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, to use an old example.

There is actually no universally accepted definition of 'Freedom of Speech' that is applied within the United States of America. The idea is not clearly defined even within the Constitution itself. Issues relating to free speech have been debated and the courts have ruled on these issues almost since the Bill of Rights was added.

That 'Bill of Rights', for those who may require a brief civics lesson, are the first ten 'amendments' to the originally approved U.S. Constitution. The very first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As explained in "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution": "The Founding generation undoubtedly believed deeply in the freedom of speech and of the press, but then, as now, these general terms were understood quite differently by different people. Many people did not think about their precise meanings until a concrete controversy arose, and when a controversy did arise, the analysis was often influenced by people's political interests as much as by their honest constitutional understanding."

Heritage also goes on to explain fully that there are certain established 'rules' and 'exceptions' where free speech is concerned which have developed largely over the past century.

Free speech guarantees restrict only government actions against such, not those of private employers, churches, universities, private home or property holders, and others. You can't put a sign up in your office cafeteria calling the boss an idiot, get fired over it, and claim some alleged free speech protection of your job.

In placing restrictions on government actions limiting free speech, that protection extends not only against federal government, but also to state and local governments, and all branches of the same. These protections are extended not only to traditional speakers and writers, to formal newspaper columnists for instance, but also to regular individuals as they communicate messages through such mediums as the Internet.

The issue has come to light recently with an incident generally involving members of my own Philadelphia Police Department. A police sergeant created a website on his own time, which he operated on his own time, popularly known as "Domelights" by it's users. The site was set up to provide vital information to officers as well as to allow communication and expression for those officers. To that expressive/communicative end, the site provided message boards covering a variety of topics.

One of the most popular of these message boards was named 'Philly Blue', intended to be populated by police officers commenting on issues involving law enforcement in general and the PPD in particular. I posted on Domelights as a regular for years, though ultimately much less frequently, using 'The Big Irish' as my screen name identity. Despite this anonymous name, everyone knew who I was. I never hid it, frequently advertised it, and made my identity available on the site's biographical information records for any member to view.

Problems always existed on Domelights due to the anonymous status of the vast majority of posters, many of whom took 'pot shots' at the department in general, it's policies and programs, and at times even at specific individual officers, supervisors, and managers.

The site has currently been shut down, temporarily restricted from accessibility due to a court proceeding. The site and it's owner found itself in court proceedings when a law suit was filed by the Guardian Civic League, an organization representing black police officers, alleging racism and other activities that it deemed libelous and possibly illegal coming from the message board posters.

I personally believe that this charge is frivolous. There were undoubtedly some posters at Domelights who were racists, just as they exist in society. And there was definitely a major flaw in the Domelights system with the anonymous status of the posters encouraging some folks to say anything inflammatory or irresponsible. But again, these are my personal opinions.

The problems at Domelights led to my own decreased visits and participation, but I would vehemently disagree that the site, it's owner, or it's board participants are institutionally racist or encourage illegal actions. It is what it is, a loosly monitored anonymous message board directed towards a specific target audience that make up the vast majority of its viewers and posters. Those suing Domelights simply don't like what is being said there at times. I believe they will ultimately lose the court fight, and we will see the return of the site in it's entirety, or with slight modifications.

Many have a hard time accepting that free speech guarantees extend to conduct that is "conventionally understood as expressive", according to Heritage. This includes things like wearing an armband, carrying a flag, and even burning of a flag extending into expressions of good and evil, with no exceptions even for things like radical Islam, Nazism, or so-called 'hate speech' expression. To quote the Heritage writers, "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea."

There are, however, universally accepted and court decision-backed exceptions to free speech. You may not speak to incitement, meaning your speech cannot be likely to cause people to engage in imminent unlawful conduct. You cannot give a street corner speech rabidly inciting folks to turn over cars, shoot police officers, and burn down buildings.

You cannot make false statements of fact that are 'knowing lies', though some such instances have been protected while some even 'innocent mistakes' have been punished by the courts. You cannot make statements that are reasonably perceived as threats of violence, and you cannot use 'fighting words' addressing individuals in face-to-face situations. "I'm gonna blow your head off" or "I'm gonna kick your ass" or "Your wife is a dirty ho" are examples that could be punishable by law.

You cannot participate in expression through obscenity or child pornography. The obscenity standard has been particularly strongly debated. Hard-core pornography is indeed punishable under certain guidelines, but those guidelines remain hotly debated and seem to constantly shift in practice. As for child pornography, courts only restrict the actual use of a child, not the presentation of a person as a child. So using a younger looking 18-year old girl in a movie that presents her as a 12-year old, one in which she has sexual relations, does not violate child pornography laws.

There are restrictions relating to the use of owned property, so-called 'intellectual property' laws for things like copyrighted information in music lyrics and formally published books and periodicals. However, these restrictions do not extend generally to things like facts and ideas. No one can legally monopolize an idea as their own.

There are restrictions on 'commercial advertising' which address things such as businesses having to make 'disclaimers' ("this pill may result in seizures and even death in some cases - check with your doctor before using"), but this does not extend to political advertising, meaning basically that politicians can exaggerate or mislead, but business cannot. It is directed towards speech that "proposes a commercial transaction", protecting the consumer. Shame that we don't rate voters as highly as product consumers where advertising protection is concerned.

We need to mind that all free speech protections extend to us as citizens from the government "acting as sovereign" but do not extend necessarily to that same government acting as an employer, educator, property owner, or regulator of the television and radio airwaves. The rules for these types of situations are so numerous that Heritage equates them to trying to understand the tax code.

The bottom line is that when speaking, be it in a public forum or in private conversation; whether on a street corner, a stage, or in an Internet chat room or message board; whether addressing a political or social or personal issue; in any event under any circumstances to any audience, it is always recommended to know your audience and know what you are talking about, and use a measure of common sense, respect, and even discretion in what you communicate.

Our Founding Fathers did indeed incorporate the idea of freedom of speech into the First Amendment of the Constitution, and not just they but all following generations of Americans have understood this idea as a basic right. What has been and likely always will be less 'basic' is the interpretation of restrictions and exceptions to speaking your mind freely.