Calvin Coolidge Celebrates America's 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania July 5, 1926
Fellow Countrymen:
We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new
life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the
individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond
our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest
and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new
nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who
participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth
day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news
which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be
no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of
150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia
as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgement of a service so great,
which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the
preeminent support of free government throughout the world.
Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length
of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of
governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly
enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of
thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as
rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of
civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very
well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of
experience.
It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim
new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained,
but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles
which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be
sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter
of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation
to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters
of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear,
whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge
that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an
adequate defense and protection.
It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider
Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a
sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might
appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the
shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern
conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the
use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a
great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world
looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty
years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place
there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose
they have become sanctified.
It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to
the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely
economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered
with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes
which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal
governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to
these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization
had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more
advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the
individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new
and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any
subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately
inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man
everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own
destiny.
We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence
represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement
from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not
without the support of many of the most respectable people in the
Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to
breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another
element of great significance and importance to which I shall later
refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which
took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and
held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It
was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no
scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed
no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations,
but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of
the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind
that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution
represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of
independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights,
and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.
The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it
represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a
remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their
representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their
constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such
instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.
While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates
to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly
followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general
instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first
instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for
independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were
immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other
Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.
This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents,
which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a
matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of
government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that
the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and
deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the
Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly
authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not
partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It
had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous
insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the
ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement
but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was
conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain
their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been
guaranteed to them under the law of the land.
When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in
adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set
out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can
not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper
significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of
a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the
dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble
away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up
independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became
commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the
world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is
something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event
would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused
it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to
liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but
because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that
July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in
history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are
reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually
proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the
principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very
definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature
of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable
rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government
must be derived from the consent of the governed.
If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if
there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can
neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it
follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the
Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these
principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very
far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled
before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may
be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence.
The importance of political speculation is not to be underestimated, as I
shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made
there can be no action.
It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these
immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and
constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity,
supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of
Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil
document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the
fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon
those principles and which from that time forth in its development has
actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an
incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion
that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice
for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring
the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the
Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to
civilization.
The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was
not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular
attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a
good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they
declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle
with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which
finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house
and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases
sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through
the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though
expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable
rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of
the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an
official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly
revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.
But if these truths to which the Declaration refers have not before
been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a
fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political
speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect
upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been
true. But the principles of our Declaration had been under discussion in
the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French
political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth
century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo
of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing
to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, of
Connecticut, as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the
General Court that—
“The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.”
“The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance.”
This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy
who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this
movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the
leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for
which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical
controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the
political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632.
Wise published a treatise, entitled “The Church’s Quarrel Espoused,” in
1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt
with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in
1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of
liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.
While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the
spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with
great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise. It
was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the
Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly
making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates
looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of
Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his “best ideas of democracy”
had been secured at church meetings.
That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by
the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and
presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document
asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined
the doctrine of equality to the assertion that “All men are created
equally free and independent.” It can scarcely be imagined that
Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own
Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the
Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be
traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, “Every man
must be acknowledged equal to every man.” Again, “The end of all good
government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and
the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate,
honor, and so forth. …” And again, “For as they have a power every man
in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this
power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall
determine.” And still again, “Democracy is Christ’s government in
church and state.” Here was the doctrine of equality, popular
sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights
clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just
as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker
as early as 1638.
When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but
natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence
should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the
final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an
assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these
sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel
Adams could say “The people seem to recognize this resolution as though
it were a decree promulgated from heaven.”
No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the
great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the
religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy
which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of
George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the
Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations
which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent,
lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course,
the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought
of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate
conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the
Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search
beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the
writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to
instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They
preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all
created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.
Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors,
where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably
choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was
their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely
have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This
was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might
have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into
action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the
Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed.
Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was
profoundly American.
If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary
evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound
to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree
will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the
Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a
declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality,
liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements
which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and
their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen
world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious
convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish.
We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the
cause.
We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not
make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and
logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and
can create institutions through which they can be the better observed,
but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have
to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that
burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but
the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly
restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of
progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences
which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and
that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something
more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great
charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are
endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No
advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone
wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in
which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward
the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no
rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not
lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more
modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that
it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years
ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never
possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of
material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of
wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by
constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not
to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established
beyond question, it is self-government — the right of the people to
rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it
is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe
them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the
people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the
theory of John Wise that “Democracy is Christ’s government.” The
ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the
Almighty.
On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present
evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at
home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although
these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an
encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so
much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary
constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It
represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is
not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The
real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the
people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform.
It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.
It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made
their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a
free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the
unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a
mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against
each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the
executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the
Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one
might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a
result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from
confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has
been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.
Under a system of popular government there will always be those who
will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there
is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion
that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism
can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is
far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical
changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and
a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our
forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses
of action which have been a great blessing to the world.
Before we can
understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which
they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their
intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent
upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep
learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the
mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or
how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily
provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the
Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence
of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in
their religious life and educational training, but also in their
political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a
great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration
of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the
people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of
material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration
created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to
that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear,
will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the
great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded
as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan
materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the
things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership
which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a
more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=408
Throughout
our years of existence, YAF-FIU attended Florida conventions
hosted by the Young America's Foundation, attended Leadership
Institute trainings as well as Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum
Collegiate's first annual leadership seminar. YAF-FIU also
lobbied to bring conservative speakers starting with Phyllis Schlafly, with the help of Young Americas Foundation, Jack Kemp, and later Pat Buchanan.
Aside from our own newsletter, VOX LIBERTAS, which was regularly distributed, YAF-FIU also distributed CAMPUS: AMERICA'S STUDENT NEWSPAPER, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) publications and Campus Report, produced by Accuracy in Academia.
FIU-YAF
fought battles on the cultural and political front for more than a
decade before the increasingly restrictive university policies nibbling
away at student freedoms finally took their toll. FIU-YAF fought the
battles greatly outnumbered at times by faculty and administration with
an apathetic student body untroubled by the loss of their freedoms on
campus, and a student newspaper with a left-wing tilt.
