Beet L. Jooz

Even more revolutionary than America’s Declaration of Independence was its declaration of governance. It is easily overlooked that while Americans proclaimed independence on July 4, 1776, they had to wait for the Constitution to govern it. Although lacking the former document’s lightning effect, it was the latter that has assured America’s lasting impact.

It is always thus: The first, regardless how notable its successors, holds an unassailable advantage. It is no less true with America’s great documents. “When in the course of human events…” “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” In a less relativistic age, these phrases were hallowed — rather than deconstructed — into every school child’s heart.

Sadly, if the words are not reverenced as formerly, the event they announced still holds pride of patriotic place in America. Independence Day remains the American holiday. The document and event are indelible. As undoubtedly important as this document was, and remains, to America, it is important to remember its less celebrated, but even more important, successor.

Why We Preference the Declaration

The Constitution does not get its own day for several reasons. For one, it has no single day of origin. It had many. Its convention crafted it over the course of 1787’s summer and finally adopted on September 17. To take effect, it had to be ratified. The 13 states did over three years — Delaware first on December 17, 1787; New Hampshire putting it into effect on June 21, 1788; and Rhode Island finally doing so on May 29, 1790.

The Declaration of Independence is also advantaged by being simpler and more accessible. Despite its list of specific grievances, its message is general: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right, ought to be free…” Literally revolutionary and divisive then, its message is simple and unifying now: Freedom.

If the Declaration of Independence provides all the “w’s” — America’s who, what, when, where, and why — the Constitution was stuck with the unenviable task of supplying the “how.” In contrast to the Declaration of Independence’s general call for freedom, the Constitution was left with the far more difficult task of defining how freedom would govern. Where the Declaration of Independence offers freedom’s limitless promise, the Constitution is stuck with its limiting reality.

How to Limit Freedom as Little as Possible

During the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton underscored the job’s difficulty: “I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced.” Of course, the colonies had severed themselves from that very government. They could not then simply replicate it here, even had they possessed the means to do so. Instead, they had to forge into the uncharted.

In contrast to the Declaration of Independence’s more enviable task of proclaiming freedom, the Constitution had to limit it. Inevitably that meant giving up some to a national government. Conscious of this, its designers sought to strictly limit the national government’s authority — something hardly matching any extant government models of their day, or today’s, for that matter.

For this reason, the Constitution’s largest limitations on freedom are all on the national government it implements. Its original text narrowly defines the national government’s role. Its first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, explicitly limit it further. The last two of these, the Ninth and Tenth, reserve the rights not named in the Constitution to the people and the states.

Since then, only two amendments have increased government power over the individual and one of those — the Eighteenth, authorizing Prohibition — was later repealed by the Twenty-First.

The Constitution Makes It Possible For Us to Celebrate

Because of its more difficult task, the Constitution is far more divisive than the Declaration of Independence. We still fight over it, just as its crafters did, with the fundamental divide still being over its original purpose to create, but strictly limit, government.

While America declared its freedom on this day more than two centuries ago, it lived just 11 years under the freedom it declared, ineffectually waging a war and ineffectively governing under it. On the brink of dissolution, the 13 original states seized upon the Constitution as their solution. For 230 years, it has stood up to its more difficult job of implementing freedom.

To appreciate that job’s difficulty, consider how many peoples have declared their freedom since then, and how few have effectively retained it.

Recognizing the Constitution’s irreplaceable role in no way disparages the Declaration of Independence’s promise and courage. It is rightly honored on this, its and America’s day.

However, it is worth pausing to remember the reason we recall it so fondly is the document that followed it and embodied it so effectively. It designed a government from whole cloth then strictly limited its scope — both unheard of at the time. The Constitution’s quiet effectiveness is the reason we loudly celebrate the Declaration of Independence today.

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence heralded the creation of the United States and announced “all men are created equal.” As Americans celebrate the country’s birth, a specter looms. It’s a greater danger than storm clouds to the annual barbecues and fireworks. From Virginia to California to New York to Texas, the Founders are being dismissed as hypocrites, slaveholders, and white supremacists.

Rather than vilifying the Founders based on personal faults anachronistically cast against modern sentiments of racism, sexism, and elitism, the nation needs to embrace their lofty ideology that promotes inclusiveness. The Founders were deeply flawed, but democracy and liberty are not. Let’s focus less on their failings, and more on their ideals. The Founders are for everyone, and we need them.

The Attempt to Erase the Founders Has Accelerated

During the monuments controversy, President Trump asked if people would move from vilifying Confederate statues to ones of the Founders: “Is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after?” Historians dismissed the inaccurate comparison. A day later, the pastor of Chicago’s Liberation Christian Center demanded the removal of a Washington statue in a local park because it stood for “the justice and freedom of white America.”

At both the University of Virginia and Hofstra University, Jefferson statues have been defaced with the words “racist” and “rapist.” Christ Church of Alexandria, Virginia voted to remove a plaque dedicated to its former worshipper, Washington, that made some people “feel unsafe and unwelcome.”

At George Washington University, a student compared the country’s first president and university namesake to Klu Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest. A campaign to change the “offensive” nickname “Colonials” snowballed into a call to change the entire name of the university. Even Benjamin Franklin, president of the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society, has drawn ire at the University of Pennsylvania (which he helped found!) because of his limited and repentant slaveholding.

The examples go on and on. A New Jersey high school principal apologized for a “Party Like It’s 1776” themed-prom, calling it “insensitive and irresponsible” since “not all communities can celebrate what life was like in 1776.” Don’t all Americans celebrate 1776 every July 4?

Dallas and San Francisco schools are investigating removing the names of Founders that did “harm to humanity,” and “engaged in slavery, female oppression or whose actions led to genocide or infringed on the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” How can you champion 1776’s Declaration while attacking its creators and protectors?

What the Founders Did Allowed Us to Eliminate Slavery

Despite valid personal critiques, the Founders built a nation that expanded individual rights and liberties. Ever the hypocrite, Thomas Jefferson advocated equality to all in spirit, if not in practice. Franklin was one of the earliest promoters of social mobility based on merit over birth.

The anti-slavery movement was tied to revolutionary liberty, and manifested in the northern states’ early abolition of the sinful institution. Women became political and slaves gained freedom through the American Revolution. While Time portrays President Trump as a king, Washington forsook lifelong power — twice. He preserved civilian supremacy and allowed for the first successful peaceful transition of power in modern world history.

A recent documentary asked college students: “What’s the first thing that comes to mind when I say ‘George Washington’?” One student’s response: “him owning slaves.” Another believed that Washington was just “not as important” today. If this is what students think, maybe we need to study the Founders and the American Revolution more.

Despite vast recognition of diverse people’s historical contributions, some historians remain detractors. Leslie Harris’ sensationalist Washington Post op-ed denounced the George Washington Book Prize Committee and Mount Vernon of “whitewashing” history. However, Marcus Rediker previously won for “The Slave Ship,” as did Annette Gordon-Reed for a book Harris called “a substantial turning point in placing slavery at the center of the field of early American history.”

Mount Vernon, a shining example of promoting diverse history and making it publically accessible, was charged with perpetuating “insidious hierarchy,” seemingly for selecting a deserving original study of Washington’s intellectual life over Harris’ pick (a book that thanks her twice in the acknowledgments, along with Mount Vernon). Despite similar accusations, Jefferson’s Monticello opened a Sally Hemings room. Both institutions regularly seek to contextualize their slavery legacies.

Don’t Ditch the Founders, Add to Them

The creation story of the nation has diversified tremendously in recent decades. Still, at a June meeting of early American historians, the Founders’ writings were mocked as “ego documents” filled with lies, and the unity of Revolutionary ideology was ridiculed as “bullsh-t.”

The public cares about the Founders, and their ideals are accessible to all, as the success of “Hamilton” has proven. American liberty, freedom, and equality should transcend their creators’ flaws. Let’s use the term “Founders” rather than “Founding Fathers” to symbolize that people of different races and sexes helped to found the nation. But including other figures shouldn’t be at the expense of Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin.

The Founders’ ideals represent all the things we crave in today’s society, if only we would embrace them. So what’s wrong with the Founders? Personally, like everyone, quite a bit. But what’s wrong with their ideals? Nothing. All people are created equal. The Founders inspired this concept and we need to remember that, and not just on the Fourth of July.

An argument between new parents led to a man's stabbing and a woman's arrest on Sunday, according to the Pineville Police Department.

      

Officials are warning about toy-like fireworks that closely resemble characters popular with children such as My Little Pony and Pete’s Dragon.

      

(Washington Examiner) A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit alleging the Trump campaign and longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 election.

U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle made it clear in her ruling Tuesday, however, that she was not ruling against the merits of the case, but rather the location of its filing.

“Washington D.C. is not the proper venue for plaintiffs’ suit,” Huvelle wrote. “It bears emphasizing that this Court’s ruling is not based on a finding that there was no collusion between defendants and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.”

Two DNC donors, Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, and a former DNC staffer, Scott Comer, filed the suit last year, after the WikiLeaks organization published emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton campaign during the election.