How Was America Founded?

In listening to one of the shows I usually record, I was pointed to a certain speech that caught my attention and directly relates to what we should be as Americans and how the country was founded -furthermore, where are we headed.

I'll start with a historical appetizer, and tomorrow we'll serve the entre'. As you probably know, when America's founders met in early July of 1776, they agreed (finally) with the words written for them, mostly by Thomas Jefferson, among those words were a Declaration of Independence. He wrote, "and they agreed, resolved, 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 Briton is, and ought to be dissolved."

They (the leaders of the time) also told the world that they held "these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among there are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Each signed that revolutionary document; knowing that failure to create a nation and defend those words meant certain death (for treason to the British crown). Failure meant execution by hanging in those days. Their words, especially regarding the self-evident truths, have inspired oppressed people around the world for more than two centuries. They pointed to Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam's leader, who was so inspired -and after driving the French out of his country, let the world know. His was the same vision that enthralled America's founders. But he soon discovered that America's then leadership rejected his desire to make that vision real for the people of Vietnam. Those leaders were determined to kill millions of Vietnam's peoples to stop Ho Chi Minh.

They pointed out that the Vietnam War would prove, our leaders were willing to send 58,000 of our own youths to their deaths and tens of thousands more to be maimed or wounded in order to stop Ho Chi Minh from implementing our nation's founders vision in his country. Just as America's leaders in the latter decades of the 20th century tried to stop the spread of our founders vision in Vietnam, those original founders were determined to stop the spread of their enunciated truths to every PERSON in American the country they would create.

The bottom line is that to fully understand our history, we must understand that implementation of those words would be slow, and would come piece by piece only after long years of pain and struggle -and we would not begin as a democratic nation. Democracy would slowly evolve over the next two centuries.

We officially began our legal national life as an oligarchy plutocracy but our founders called it a republic. An oligarchy is defined simply as that form of government which the supreme power is restricted to and exercised by the few. A plutocracy is defined simply as that form of oligarchy wherein the supreme power is restricted to and exercised by the few who are rich (by the wealthy classes -those folks who George W. Bush called his "base" ...the "haves and the have-mores"). Those facts that 200+ years of our rollercoaster history should not take any deserved credit away from our founders or diminish the visionary power of those special words in our Declaration of Independence. Lets get to the meat of the speech...

In 1857, in response to the Dred Scott Decision www.historicaldocuments.com/DreadScott.htm which held that black Americans were not included nor contemplated in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln attacked that decision and the reasoning used in the opinion written by Chief Justice Taney in a speech on June 26. 1857 at Springfield, IL. http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=321&parent=63 In that speech, Lincoln attacked both Justice Taney and Stephen Douglas (who was his opponent for the Senate in that state). This is what Lincoln said about the Declaration of Independence after he had some words about Chief Justice Taney.

"The Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years." He went on to say "All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, and philosophy follows, and the Theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him [so he could free himself]. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrent of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is.

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume, that the public estimate of the negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the government." Then, Lincoln addresses what Taney had to say about the Declaration of Independence. He said "Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites.

Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another." Then Lincoln goes on to give his view of the Declaration of Independence. He said "I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and objects of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that "all men are created equal."

Now let us hear Judge Douglas’ view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is: "No man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal—that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain—that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country."

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it—see what a mere wreck—mangled ruin—it makes of our once glorious Declaration. "They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!" Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s inferior races.

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and Lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now—mere rubbish—old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth," to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present [according to Judge Douglas] ; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose after you read it once in the old fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas’ version. It will then run thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain."

And now I appeal to all—to Democrats as well as others,—are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away?—thus left no more at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? thus shorn of its vitality, and practical value; and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?”

It was quite a performance by the rather skilled politician, wouldn't you say?

Tomorrow -we'll get into why I chose to post this particular excerpt.