July 4th

“In the United States, we often celebrate the Fourth of July as our Independence Day. We proclaimed our independence from Great Britain and, from that day forward, the rebellion became a revolution with a purpose: freedom from the crown.

July 4th, 1776 is not actually the day freedom was achieved, however. September 3rd, 1783 was the day Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris, which recognized and granted the Thirteen Colonies their independence after their eight-year-long fight for freedom. Even then, it wouldn’t be ratified until May 12, 1784, which is over nine years removed from the Battles of Concord and Lexington.”

That passage is from the Through the Spyglass entry The Big Legacy of Robert Smalls, in which I argue Juneteenth is perhaps the more apt day in which we can truly celebrate freedom.

That isn’t to say we shouldn’t celebrate the Fourth of July, nor should we ignore the momentous occasion of 250 years from the Declaration of Independence.

That is to say, we should take a step back and examine what the Fourth of July means on the 250th anniversary.

Are we celebrating freedom? In a sense, of course. We stated we would no longer be ruled by Great Britain and declared our independence.

But is it freedom wholesale?

What I mean by that: is freedom is a strong concept. Freedom means freedom, and some don’t think about it beyond that. But who was truly free on the Fourth of July?

Were those enslaved by the men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence free? Were the Native American Indians free? Let’s not forget a large reason for the War of Independence was Great Britain’s refusal to let settlers encroach on Native lands past the Appalachian Mountains.

What today is, ultimately, the day in which the political tradition has been brought to the forefront: we should rule ourselves, and not be dictated to be the unseen, invisible hand.

Regardless of outcome or bastardization of concept, the introduction of this concept of self-rule and independence from faraway rulers is an important one to have come to the mainstream.

One thing that must be understood: good ideas can come from bad people.

This, of course, is not saying the Founding Fathers were bad people (although I’d argue slaveownership is pretty bad regardless of any century’s standards.) This is to say, regardless of how you feel about the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War, the early (or even modern) United States and the people behind the current, you cannot deny the importance of their ideas.

For my left-leaning readers, consider John C. Calhoun:

John C. Calhoun, by the standards of an anti-bigotry and pro-freedom party, is a white supremacist slaver piece of shit. I won’t mince words when I tell you I am no fan of the man he was.

However, I believe Nullification was a legitimate idea not worth dismissing because Calhoun was the loudest proponent.

The Nullification Crisis, which explaining exactly what that is would be beyond the scope of this article (it’s basically “A state should have the right to null and void any federal law it deems unconstitutional within its own borders if it believed the federal government had overstepped its constitutional authority”), was ultimately a precursor to the “state’s rights [to own slaves]” argument of the Civil War, I firmly believe the spirit of nullification is indeed correct.

Think about the Fugitive Slave Act, in which saw the same “States Rights Advocates” demand states obey federal law, when a state like Wisconsin turned its own logic of nullification against the states. A state should be able to reject federal law that oversteps and is unconstitutional.

Ironically, I wouldn’t agree with Calhoun’s slyly intended hope of preserving slavery because, in the fight for liberty and justice for all, and where we believe the will of all must be heard, ownership of a fellow human being is entirely incompatible with any doctrine.

Nullification, in my opinion, could have never truly been applied to the defense of slavery. It is a bastardization of the very concept for that to be made so.

Indeed I sit here and earnestly tell you that I believe the man who articulated nullification also held a bastardization interpretation of how far it could go.

For my right-leaning readers, consider Bernie Sanders:

Sanders was once the darling of the left wing in this country, although his strong Zionist stances have certainly soured many on the left towards him.

Needless to say, he was always just a “crazy socialist” to much of the right wing.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton criticized Sanders for not supporting the families of Sandy Hook in their lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.

Sanders opposed the lawsuit because he believed a gun manufacturer should not be criminalized for selling a product which is legal to sell to people. He did say he would support the victims if they could prove the gun manufacturer knew the person they were selling a weapon to would misuse the weapon, like massacre people with it.

Sanders did not want to set a precedent of criminalizing those for selling a legal product. This was a stance commended by the NRA.

No matter where you stand on the left or right, if you remove the issue of gate keeping ideas on one side or another and take the crux of the argument for what it is, you can slowly build towards real progress in this country.

Today, no matter what side of the aisle you reside on, remember this: today brought to the world the idea of freedom and self-rule from faraway empires. Whether or not we have truly perfected the concept, or whether or not you think there’s a lot of work still to be done, is perhaps secondary to the larger point at hand.

Because of that concept’s birth 250 years ago today, we can continue to work on perfecting it and creating, not just a more perfect union, but a more perfect society.

With liberty, and justice, for all.

uspirates.org/usa-250-on-the-s…