Skip to content

Why I Honor Independence Day — Even in Leftist America

 

JOSEPH writes:

It saddens me no end to read comments like the one in the previous post by Lawrence Auster, who said he would no longer celebrate Fourth of July because of the passage of Obamacare. I have great respect for Mr. Auster’s thinking but Independence Day has nothing – nada, zip – to do with the United States government as it would not be invented  in its present form for another nineteen years after 1776. Nineteen years!

The Fourth Day of July, AD 1776 is remembered because of the men and women, my blood forefathers, who dared assert their Godly and English rights as free men and defeated their oppressors.

We celebrate this day to remember them – our earthly fathers – who did something audacious and insane and for our benefit to this day. Yes, we are the Posterity they spoke of and I do not refer merely to the preamble of the Constitution of 1789.

Truth be told, this is the main objection I have to United States citizens who are descended not of those amazing Americans of 1776 but rather of immigrants who came here to a land already established but who do so as a matter of diffident entitlement. The sons of immigrants should be more loyal to and jealous of America, which to reiterate has precious little to do with its invention called the United States, than are the native born sons of those insane souls.

So when I watch the fireworks each year, tears drip from my eyes not for some useless, parasitical politician but for the men, women and children in my own line who died to benefit … me and my own sons.

God bless America and may he have mercy on the souls of those who turned the United States against her.

                                           — Comments —

Lawrence Auster writes:

So Independence Day is not a celebration of American independence and American national existence, but an Anglo-Saxon ethnic holiday. Who knew?

Laura writes:

I imagine those who fought in the Revolution would have a hard time celebrating Independence Day too if they were somehow brought back to life. The ideals they defended have been betrayed. So I don’t think it dishonors them to abstain from observances of the holiday.

Joseph replies:

Yes. Independence Day is an Anglo-Saxon holiday. And a French Huguenot holiday. And a Scots-Irish holiday. And a Britonnic holiday. And a Dutch holiday.

It is the holiday a specific people threw off their Royal Master and we – their blood kin – celebrate their legacy to us, our freedom.

And for Mr Auster’s benefit: You confuse “America” which is a nation united by blood and destiny with our creation, the legal fiction we invented called the United States of America.

Despite gross ignorance of the distinction the difference is profound and vital to us whose fathers built this place. Those who came here to get something simply can’t understand the subtlety and that’s okay with me as it separates the sheep from the goats.

Jesse Powell writes:

The reason why we should still honor Independence Day is because America is still under the same Constitution that was put into effect in 1789; no other European-derived country can claim such a long lineage of consistency in its governing structure. The political system that the Founding Fathers designed has led to the richest, freest, and most powerful country on the face of the earth.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I will put an emphasis on “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It seems to me that blogging manifestly unpopular political and cultural opinions falls under this part of the First Amendent. In other words, the very blogs being used to pour condemnation upon the United States Government as it currently stands have the freedom to vent their spleen openly and in public without fear of persecution or being silenced precisely because of the Constitutional protections and form of government that is the object of their scorn.

Just because the Supreme Court made a ruling that goes against the Constitution does not de-legitimize the government itself. I would furthermore add that the government being controlled by “leftists” does not de-legitimize the government either. “Leftists,” as the term is being used on this website, constitute the majority of the population. It is quite absurd to think that a small minority of people should rule over the vast majority of people in a democracy. This country belongs to “leftists” far more than it belongs to “traditionalist conservatives” at this point in time. This fact of political reality should be respected.

The job of traditionalist conservatives should be to recruit and persuade the leftist majority to our way of thinking, not to complain and moan that we aren’t getting our way while we are still a marginalized and very small minority.

To proclaim the failure of America’s political system merely based on Obamacare being upheld by the Supreme Court is grossly premature. The fight for America’s soul has barely begun, to expect victory or dominance already is totally unrealistic considering where things now stand.

Buck writes:

I couldn’t agree more with this by Joseph:

God bless America and may he have mercy on the souls of those who turned the United States against her.

Joseph is dead right; The United States is the creature of America, and the creature has turned on it’s creator. The creator, as it turns out, wasn’t quite the nation that it thought it was.

I guess that I fall somewhere in the middle. I’m a half-plus Irish, so the Fourth of July could be considered to be like an Irish Wake; remembering the dead with plenty of food, drink and laughter. Fireworks by the government.

Just for grins, here’s the Background section from the Wikipedia entry on Independence Day, which cites John Adams as setting the tone:

During the American Revolution, the legal separation of the Thirteen colonies from Great Britain occurred on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental congress voted to approve a resolution of independence that had been proposed in June by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia declaring the United States independent from Great Britain. After voting for independence, Congress turned its attention to the Declaration of Independence, a statement explaining this decision, which had been prepared by a committee of Five, with Thomas Jefferson as its principal author. Congress debated and revised the wording of the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4. A day earlier, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail:

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

Adams’s prediction was off by two days. From the outset, Americans celebrated independence on July 4, the date shown on the much-publicized Declaration of Independence, rather than on July 2, the date the resolution of independence was approved in a closed session of Congress.

Buck continues:

Mr. Powell is writing about the United States, its constitution and current government. “The reason why we should still honor Independence Day is because” the Fourth of July is a celebration of America’s Independence from the British. It’s America’s celebration of its birth as a nation. What followed — the United States, the Constitution and the government (now run wild) — were created by America. America grew of sweat and blood and it came of age by fighting a war for its independence.

The state of the state is not what’s being celebrated, or it should not be what is celebrated. If we don’t celebrate our original independence, how can we ever fathom celebrating another? The United States wasn’t a blood oath, the Declaration of Independence was.

Mr. Powell writes:

The fight for America’s soul has barely begun, to expect victory or dominance already is totally unrealistic considering where things now stand.

“Barely begun”? What does that mean? We’re impotent.

John Purdy writes:

I’ll get my head bitten off for this but it has to be said. As a descendant of those who remained loyal to the king in the American War of Independence, I have to say you weren’t that badly oppressed and that rebellion against the king was, quite simply, treason. As disgusted as you all are with the U.S. Government, are you willing to take arms against it? Probably not. Same deal with us.

Mr. Purdy adds:

Because Americans rebelled against the Crown you are doomed. There is simply no hope for the United States at all. Notice how you don’t like it when other people are more Conservative than you are.

Laura writes:

It was the British crown that rebelled — against its own tradition of democratic representation. Thus it was doomed to either tyranny or revolution.

 Laura writes:

When posting Joseph’s earlier comments, I read them quickly and missed the connotation of this:

Despite gross ignorance of the distinction the difference is profound and vital to us whose fathers built this place. Those who came here to get something simply can’t understand the subtlety and that’s okay with me as it separates the sheep from the goats.

Joseph appears to be saying that anyone not descended from the founding generation – all subsequent immigrants and their descendants, including Mr. Auster and me — cannot possibly understand the mystical attachment to Fourth of July because he is not truly part of the American nation, and will never be truly part of the American nation.

The meaning is offensive. And I profoundly disagree with its interpretation of the founding.

Also Joseph writes in his initial comment:

Truth be told, this is the main objection I have to United States citizens who are descended not of those amazing Americans of 1776 but rather of immigrants who came here to a land already established but who do so as a matter of diffident entitlement. The sons of immigrants should be more loyal to and jealous of America, which to reiterate has precious little to do with its invention called the United States, than are the native born sons of those insane souls.

But in many cases, the sons of subsequent immigrants have been more loyal to and jealous of America than sons of those “amazing Americans.”

Buck writes:

Mr. Purdy, (who speaks as a British subject?) like many others, has a different understanding of what it means to be “conservative.” Keeping everything fixed as it is, good or bad, just because that’s the way it is, is not traditionalist conservatism. That’s a Burkean conservatism run wild. You don’t keep every tradition just because it is, that would be retarded. There is good and there is bad. You learn, you chose. America chose a classical liberalism over protecting or “conserving” the British crown. I believe that we proved to be wildly correct.

We’re doomed, not because we rebelled against the crown, not because we didn’t protect and conserve the failing British model; we’re doomed because a century-plus later we hyper-liberalized just like the Brits.

Should we “conserve” things just as they are now?

Buck writes:

I hope, and suspect, that Joseph did not intend to deem Mr. Auster to be grossly ignorant of the distinction, that would be foolish. I suspect that he meant to say that too many of those who came here later are grossly ignorant of the distinction, and that they just came to get something and not to be a part of an America of which they have no non-material use or understanding. That is a distinction that I try to make, between the modern, entitled U.S. citizen, being born here now, and the American who is withering away.

Laura writes:

Yes, that was my original interpretation. But then on reading it more closely, it seemed that Joseph was saying that those who are not directly descended from the early Americans could have no higher connection to America as a nation.

Buck writes:

Joseph! Please clear this up!

Since Joseph did not say “Despite (your) gross ignorance of the distinction…”, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean; really? Joseph is arguing that Lawrence Auster is confused about America?

Mr. Purdy writes:

For the record I write as a Canadian, descended from United Empire Loyalists, what Americans call “Tories”, who were expelled to Nova Scotia after the War of Independence. My people go back to Connecticut in the 1630′s. We backed the wrong horse, maybe, but it was on a principle of honour well established at the time. I love Americans and am deeply saddened by the direction things have gone for all of us continuously for decades now. My second comment was a bit intemperate and only half-serious but was based on an idea common among Monarchists that Republics usually go astray, an idea recognised by American leaders of the time, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Aristotle believed in Monarchy so it’s not bad company exactly. As for the liberalism of the Brits (and everyone else in the West), too true but a case can be made that some portion of that was exported from the U.S. (or imposed, as in the case of Germany) at least since the time of Woodrow Wilson.

Edmund Burke, by the way, was opposed to the war against the colonists and argued for a negotiated settlement. He hoped to retain their loyalty to the king.

Mr. Purdy writes:

As an aside, as great a film as Gibson’s The Patriot was, it does contain scurrilous anti-British propaganda (he also hates the Jews). The British did not burn people alive in churches. In fact, they were on their best behaviour because the political situation in Britain was so evenly divided between the war supporters and the anti-war faction. The colonists were viewed as Englishmen and any atrocity of that type might have brought down the elected government in Britain. I just get a little heated when my ancestors are portrayed as Waffen SS.

Joseph writes:

Those who consider themselves ‘immigrants’ cannot be ‘American’ because an American is loyal to America. Period. Is it possible to be adopted into the American family? Of course. There are former immigrants in my family tree, none of which ever spoke of “the old country,” called themselves by some hyphenated adjective that distinguished them from the plain English meaning of ‘American’ and all considered George Washington their great-grandfather father as much as any American does.

Such people are not the problem and all of you know that full well.

The problem is this: somewhere along the line, America stopped referring to the blood nation of British Americans and their closely related kinsmen of Colonial days and started instead to refer to some abomination called ‘The Melting Pot’ and its ‘American Dream’ both of which utterly and definitively reject national America in favor of the self-serving and obvious purpose embodied by, ‘America, where the streets are paved with gold!’ or its variant, ‘In America, any boy can grow up to be president’ (which actually seems to be the case to my chagrin)’.

Sadly, these are the dominant and utterly materialistic, nay selfish and greedy concepts that have supplanted the original notions, vanquishing them to the point that conservative talking heads babble them as though Moses himself brought them down from Mount Sinai.

So let’s clear this up right now. Some people emigrated to America because they admired what the Pilgrim’s started on Plymouth Rock. This is a testament to ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’.

Quite a few others were brought here, mainly to the American South, in chains and chattel slaves or only slightly less odiously as indentured servants voluntary and involuntary. Common criminals were sprinkled in among them as well, for what it’s worth.

But by far the vast majority of émigrés to America came here without the slightest regard to Congregational Non-Conformism, Quakerism, or even the ‘Macocracy’ of the Appalachian hills.

The vast majority came here to get something be it food, clothing, shelter, opportunity, criminal opportunity, a quick buck – whatever. This is so plain and obvious that I find it offensive I must tap dance and tippy-toe around it. Those tens of millions of ‘Hyphenates’ as TR might call them were never American no matter what their status as United States persons.

And their ethic, that of common peasants relieved of tedium but engaged in ‘getting’ some’ defines the post-war attitude exemplified by the Baby Boomer generation, aptly called the ‘Me Generation.’

Buck writes:

Joseph is excessively aggressive here; he’s twisting “immigrant” too tight or reducing it too severely from common usage. He’s constructed a contradiction. I come here as an immigrant, meaning that I was not born here. I do everything that he deems necessary and agreeable for me to be “adopted into the American family,” just as those on his family tree did; English only, George Washington, and no more “old country.” Joseph says that that is “of course” possible. Am I now an immigrant, a former immigrant, or an American? I was not born here. How did I get here? Was I “born again”?

“Born again” is one way of looking at it, and not a bad way, but that’s not what he said.

The term “melting pot” has a muddled and confused definition. To melt, to melt in, to meld; meld being a combination of melt and weld. That says to me, to become one and the same, to blend in to the point that there remains little or no distinction between the original stock and the new elements in the pot. The add-ins take on the flavor and characteristics of the stew, they don’t change it. It’s a modest amount of spice. That is what happened, for the most part, before the 1960s. People blended or melted in during a necessary and very healthy forty-year simmer. That stopped abruptly and permanently when the world was invited to empty its cupboards into America’s pot. That, I suspect is what Joseph is so rightly angry about. So am I. That is what has killed America, all of a sudden. America is no longer just meat and potatoes. I could go on for pages with the food analogy. It actually does symbolize a good bit.

I don’t know that the Pilgrims ate all that well in the beginning. That would be a pretty tough diet, if that’s what Joseph is actually clambering for.

Share:EmailFacebook0Twitter2Pinterest0Google+0