My husband recently lost his job so I’m working extra hard to try to make up for his (considerable) lost income. Therefore I don’t have the time, energy, or frankly personal space, for the kind of deep thinking I had been accustomed to doing. So this was a great read. Thank you.
As JFK once said at a dinner of Nobel Laureates, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Mr Jefferson was one of the greatest minds of the age.
Holly, de Tocqueville Democracy in America. If you promise to read it I’ll send extra $ for it. The best description of why the USA was such a beacon for the rest of the world for so long and also shows how far the drift has gone.
Good luck with your project. One day you will have to read Caro on LBJ, the greatest political biography of the 20th century but now is not that time
Thank you, for doing this! I've been pretty aware since 1968, but most people don't give a flip about government and it's sad because it's what protects our freedom to do everything else in our lives! I think people are becoming hungry for this information!!! You done good, Holly!!! It's going to grow exponentially!!! ❤️
May 5, 2023·edited May 5, 2023Liked by Holly MathNerd
Still reading but this passage:
"...makes me think that the Founders would surely be horrified by the state of American freedom today..."
reminds me of the meme where there's a portrait of Washington with the caption, "me and my homies woulda been stacking bodies by now."
In addition to being funny it speaks to your analysis, that these guys were clear and decisive and none of what they were saying was up for debate. It's why a couple years ago I came to the conclusion that "the marketplace of ideas" is not really a thing.
A couple things, one of which I brought up a week or three ago.
I have a strong suspicion that Jefferson did not intend the world "pursuit" to be used as a verb, but rather a noun: happiness as a pursuit, much as mathematics or engineering or medicine.
I have thought about "...than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." for a number of years. I'd assert it is a warning as well, sort of a follow-up to the idea that we shouldn't change forms for light and transient causes. "Just because we're going to undertake this doesn't mean we're going to make something any better than what we already have."
Jefferson was indeed a Deist, but I am pretty sure he was a regular church-goer, believing that he should stay in touch with the ideas common to colonial America, and Christianity was certainly the common thing.
We look back on Jefferson as a sober, perhaps even stoic, man. Maybe as he got older, but when he was Washington's SecState, he and Washington argued bitterly over things, to the point that Jefferson tendered his resignation to Washington. As much as they were in disagreement, Washington found Jefferson's views invaluable and convinced him to stay on. We shouldn't be so surprised by the contention - 2 red-headed, exceptionally intelligent, total alpha males butting heads. This speaks well of the character of both men.
This is phenomenal! I became a paid subscriber when I read what you are doing.
A thought on happiness... I find it really interesting that the founders framed it as the “pursuit of happiness”, firm in the knowledge that it’s something we all strive for, not necessarily a destination. And that it’s pursuit is one of our inalienable rights. Just mind blowing...
I wish I had read this two weeks ago. I am on a local school board and we were recently asked to vote on a “call to action” for youth. The definition of youth in this case was expanded to include ages 18-25 (!?!) Safety concerns are rampant throughout the document and one the *aspirations* in the document is: “young people have opportunities to...be responsible risk takers who have the support of the community to catch them if they fall”
One quote from the Declaration of Independence would have exposed that document for what it truly is.
Dr. Johnson wrote the first dictionary of the English language and it was published in 1755.
When I was reading Andrew Roberts' "The Last King of America", he referred to Dr. Johnson's dictionary when there was a word in correspondence that had an archaic meaning. Besides his dictionary, I would recommend checking out the life/works of Dr. Johnson if you're not familiar with him. He was a very interesting man, and a true master of language.
The pursuit of happiness is a key phrase. Jefferson and the other founders were keen followers of John Locke, and his formulation was, "Life, liberty, and property." Property was a problematical term for Jefferson because slaves were property to their owners. Clearly he didn't want to condone slavery. Yes, I know he was a slave owner himself, but he thought slavery would eventually die out.
It's interesting to study the two great revolutions of the late 18th century. The American and the French. Why did the former last and the latter quickly devolve to tyranny? Edmund Burke had his ideas, as did de Tocqueville. The revolutions were less than 20 years apart and clearly inextricably linked despite how different they were.
America in 1776: "Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!"
America in 2020: "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"
Just one comment about the pursuit of happiness. I don't have a contemporaneous dictionary to recommend, but it is my understanding that at that time, "pursuit of happiness" meant the pursuit of an economic occupation, in other words, the right to make a living - kind of like your substack.
I understand you are doing this for preciously this reason but its very surreal to see you come to the same conclusions regarding many of the statements in the declaration that I was pretty much born into with how my own family explained US history to be when I was younger, and I will not deny up until recently I had assumed almost all Americans, even those I politically were against, believed. These last few years have been very eye opening, and in all honesty I would have thought that your upbringing among the religious right would have seen them at least reference these kind of documents yet they seem to have just acknowledged their existence with out actually looking at any of the text.
The idea especially that people are in possession of Natural Rights, that cannot be given by a government nor taken by one, they exist at all times and with all peoples is a powerful one. I remember watching a video in which someone made an argument that the French Revolution was more impactful than the American one due to the hypocrisy of keeping slavery and other such factors as well as its direct impact on Democracy in Europe but they also made the point of saying that the French Revolution "gave these rights" to the French People, and my only response was "yes and they then took many of those rights away from the thousands they executed on trumped up charges and to unleash a terror that directly lead the people to backing a monarchy". It also flows directly into the ideals of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments, you absolutely at all times have the right to speak your mind as you see fit and you also have the right, natural and inalienable, to defend yourself with a, to use a modern parlance, "weapon of war" as that was indeed the actual intent when looking at how these rights were alluded too in the Declaration. I do also highly recommend the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers as these two sets of documents would show how almost immediately after the Revolution there was still a great deal of debate and argument amongst the founders on how the USA was actually to be run and organized. The Anti-Federalists directly lead to the enumerated rights within the original Bill of Rights specifically to ensure government would be forbidden from having power over, and thus the power to curtail, certain things such as speech and self defense
OK, here's my response having just reread the Declaration, and not (yet) your post.
The thing holds up well. Better than I remember from the last time I read it over a decade ago. I'm a non-American Anglophile, and I used like only the highfalutin' preamble with it's unalienable Rights etc. I thought the actual list of grievances was a bit whiny and parochial.
Not anymore. I can't judge how historically accurate the grievances are, but taken in their own terms they are certainly fine things to get rebellious over. In particular I'm impressed about how procedural and constitutional they are. E.g.
> He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, ...
Or
> He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices
Or
> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
Basically the claim is that as British subjects, they were entitled to a system of impartial laws and machinery for fairly administering them. They contend that the King has undermined this system, and thus pissed away his (and Britain's) right to govern.
This is wonderful; I can’t wait to read more.
My husband recently lost his job so I’m working extra hard to try to make up for his (considerable) lost income. Therefore I don’t have the time, energy, or frankly personal space, for the kind of deep thinking I had been accustomed to doing. So this was a great read. Thank you.
As JFK once said at a dinner of Nobel Laureates, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Mr Jefferson was one of the greatest minds of the age.
Holly, de Tocqueville Democracy in America. If you promise to read it I’ll send extra $ for it. The best description of why the USA was such a beacon for the rest of the world for so long and also shows how far the drift has gone.
Good luck with your project. One day you will have to read Caro on LBJ, the greatest political biography of the 20th century but now is not that time
Thank you, for doing this! I've been pretty aware since 1968, but most people don't give a flip about government and it's sad because it's what protects our freedom to do everything else in our lives! I think people are becoming hungry for this information!!! You done good, Holly!!! It's going to grow exponentially!!! ❤️
Still reading but this passage:
"...makes me think that the Founders would surely be horrified by the state of American freedom today..."
reminds me of the meme where there's a portrait of Washington with the caption, "me and my homies woulda been stacking bodies by now."
In addition to being funny it speaks to your analysis, that these guys were clear and decisive and none of what they were saying was up for debate. It's why a couple years ago I came to the conclusion that "the marketplace of ideas" is not really a thing.
I’m thrilled you’re doing this! It’s a review for me, but your writing is refreshing and encouraging. I needed both right now. Thank you.
A couple things, one of which I brought up a week or three ago.
I have a strong suspicion that Jefferson did not intend the world "pursuit" to be used as a verb, but rather a noun: happiness as a pursuit, much as mathematics or engineering or medicine.
I have thought about "...than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." for a number of years. I'd assert it is a warning as well, sort of a follow-up to the idea that we shouldn't change forms for light and transient causes. "Just because we're going to undertake this doesn't mean we're going to make something any better than what we already have."
Jefferson was indeed a Deist, but I am pretty sure he was a regular church-goer, believing that he should stay in touch with the ideas common to colonial America, and Christianity was certainly the common thing.
We look back on Jefferson as a sober, perhaps even stoic, man. Maybe as he got older, but when he was Washington's SecState, he and Washington argued bitterly over things, to the point that Jefferson tendered his resignation to Washington. As much as they were in disagreement, Washington found Jefferson's views invaluable and convinced him to stay on. We shouldn't be so surprised by the contention - 2 red-headed, exceptionally intelligent, total alpha males butting heads. This speaks well of the character of both men.
This is phenomenal! I became a paid subscriber when I read what you are doing.
A thought on happiness... I find it really interesting that the founders framed it as the “pursuit of happiness”, firm in the knowledge that it’s something we all strive for, not necessarily a destination. And that it’s pursuit is one of our inalienable rights. Just mind blowing...
I wish I had read this two weeks ago. I am on a local school board and we were recently asked to vote on a “call to action” for youth. The definition of youth in this case was expanded to include ages 18-25 (!?!) Safety concerns are rampant throughout the document and one the *aspirations* in the document is: “young people have opportunities to...be responsible risk takers who have the support of the community to catch them if they fall”
One quote from the Declaration of Independence would have exposed that document for what it truly is.
Thank you
I hope your friend is wrong. If I wasn't already a paid subscriber, I'd def jump on board now.
If there ever was a miracle with governance in history, it was the founding of this country.
As to words: Check out Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary: https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/index.php.
Dr. Johnson wrote the first dictionary of the English language and it was published in 1755.
When I was reading Andrew Roberts' "The Last King of America", he referred to Dr. Johnson's dictionary when there was a word in correspondence that had an archaic meaning. Besides his dictionary, I would recommend checking out the life/works of Dr. Johnson if you're not familiar with him. He was a very interesting man, and a true master of language.
Looking forward to the rest of your exegesis!
The pursuit of happiness is a key phrase. Jefferson and the other founders were keen followers of John Locke, and his formulation was, "Life, liberty, and property." Property was a problematical term for Jefferson because slaves were property to their owners. Clearly he didn't want to condone slavery. Yes, I know he was a slave owner himself, but he thought slavery would eventually die out.
It's interesting to study the two great revolutions of the late 18th century. The American and the French. Why did the former last and the latter quickly devolve to tyranny? Edmund Burke had his ideas, as did de Tocqueville. The revolutions were less than 20 years apart and clearly inextricably linked despite how different they were.
Bank when I was on FB, I posted:
America in 1776: "Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!"
America in 2020: "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"
Just one comment about the pursuit of happiness. I don't have a contemporaneous dictionary to recommend, but it is my understanding that at that time, "pursuit of happiness" meant the pursuit of an economic occupation, in other words, the right to make a living - kind of like your substack.
Great post! Keep going!
Thank you. We should all re-read our founding father’s gifts to us. The simplicity yet elegance in their words is profound. I look forward to part 2!
Mine was great so that proves you are right. I have found yours to be the best advice: choose your translation carefully
I understand you are doing this for preciously this reason but its very surreal to see you come to the same conclusions regarding many of the statements in the declaration that I was pretty much born into with how my own family explained US history to be when I was younger, and I will not deny up until recently I had assumed almost all Americans, even those I politically were against, believed. These last few years have been very eye opening, and in all honesty I would have thought that your upbringing among the religious right would have seen them at least reference these kind of documents yet they seem to have just acknowledged their existence with out actually looking at any of the text.
The idea especially that people are in possession of Natural Rights, that cannot be given by a government nor taken by one, they exist at all times and with all peoples is a powerful one. I remember watching a video in which someone made an argument that the French Revolution was more impactful than the American one due to the hypocrisy of keeping slavery and other such factors as well as its direct impact on Democracy in Europe but they also made the point of saying that the French Revolution "gave these rights" to the French People, and my only response was "yes and they then took many of those rights away from the thousands they executed on trumped up charges and to unleash a terror that directly lead the people to backing a monarchy". It also flows directly into the ideals of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments, you absolutely at all times have the right to speak your mind as you see fit and you also have the right, natural and inalienable, to defend yourself with a, to use a modern parlance, "weapon of war" as that was indeed the actual intent when looking at how these rights were alluded too in the Declaration. I do also highly recommend the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers as these two sets of documents would show how almost immediately after the Revolution there was still a great deal of debate and argument amongst the founders on how the USA was actually to be run and organized. The Anti-Federalists directly lead to the enumerated rights within the original Bill of Rights specifically to ensure government would be forbidden from having power over, and thus the power to curtail, certain things such as speech and self defense
OK, here's my response having just reread the Declaration, and not (yet) your post.
The thing holds up well. Better than I remember from the last time I read it over a decade ago. I'm a non-American Anglophile, and I used like only the highfalutin' preamble with it's unalienable Rights etc. I thought the actual list of grievances was a bit whiny and parochial.
Not anymore. I can't judge how historically accurate the grievances are, but taken in their own terms they are certainly fine things to get rebellious over. In particular I'm impressed about how procedural and constitutional they are. E.g.
> He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, ...
Or
> He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices
Or
> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
Basically the claim is that as British subjects, they were entitled to a system of impartial laws and machinery for fairly administering them. They contend that the King has undermined this system, and thus pissed away his (and Britain's) right to govern.