Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Declaration of Independence

Okay, so without starting a long political debate here, if Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were working on a revision of the Declaration of Independence (as per Star’s comments in Contact), what might they get into an argument about?

Unfortunately, I think I only know the first sentence of the American Declaration of Independence, and I know nothing about Jefferson or Franklin's political beliefs, so maybe there is nothing to argue about.

And I'm not looking for a long argument, just the basic subject of something they might argue about. For example, did The Declaration of Independence have an references to universal healthcare in it? I assume not. On the other hand, if it were being written today, maybe one would want universal healthcare added and the other one wouldn't - depending on their political leanings. So is that a possibility? That they would argue about whether or not to change it to 'life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and universal healthcare' or not.

Btw, I know I ask strange questions.

ML

As long as it means you're writing... it's all good .

One possibility is regarding slavery. The original document had a passage [or two? I forget] quite condemning it. Keep in mind it was written by Jefferson, a slave owner himself, who may have planned to free his slaves not long after but, for whatever reason did not. He is also famous for having an affair with one of his slaves - Sally Heming.

The rest of the South was entirely opposed to the passage and demanded that it be removed or they would vote against independence. Unanimity was required so there had to be some agreement.

Ben Franklin, an ardent abolitionist, pointed out to both Jefferson and Adams [who strongly opposed taking the clause out], that freedom had to be their primary concern and slavery could be dealt with at a later date. Without freedom from England, the issue of slavery etc was a moot point. It's a baby with the bathwater thing [no he didn't say that ].

To go with your health care analogy, it would be like today's Dems saying 'we'll take what we can get and get universal health care later'.

The movie 1776 is a fairly decent [not entirely accurate but what 'historical' movie is?] depiction of the debate if you can find a copy or the script somewhere. I'd loan it to you but we're not exactly neighbors .

FWIW, here's part of the exchange [taken from imdb so... Rutledge is one of the delegates from S. Carolina]:

John Adams: [stands and approaches him] What is it you want, Rutledge?

Edward Rutledge: Remove the offending passage from your Declaration.

John Adams: If we did that, we would be guilty of what we ourselves are rebelling against.

Edward Rutledge: Nevertheless... remove it, or South Carolina will bury, now and forever, your dream of independence.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: John? I beg you consider what you're doing.

John Adams: Mark me, Franklin... if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: That's probably true, but we won't hear a thing, we'll be long gone. Besides, what would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We're men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John. Independence; America. If we don't secure that, what difference will the rest make?

John Adams: [long pause] Jefferson, say something.

Thomas Jefferson: What else is there to do?

John Adams: Well, man, you're the one that wrote it.

Thomas Jefferson: I *wrote* ALL of it, Mr. Adams. [stands and goes to the Declaration, crosses out the clause]

Carol, I agree that slavery might have been something they would have argued about putting in back in 1776, but I assume that if they were revising it today, they would both agree that it is everyone's right to be free. I also would hope they would both agree that these right apply to every 'person' instead of to every 'man.'

So these are things I suspect/hope they would agree on if they were revising it today.

I'm looking for something for them to disagree about.

However, I think your comments do solve the problem for me. After all, they could both agree that healthcare was a right - but still argue about whether or not to include it because it might not be accepted if healthcare was included (the same problem they had in 1776 with slavery). So thanks.

(Hope that made sense)

ML

Hmm... Maybe I misunderstood you - or Star. I thought they were arguing in period [1776] during the original revision process. Not arguing today [or in the mid90s] over what to put in a 'present day' Declaration...

Does that make sense?

Maybe I'll have to break out my dvds... or just go look at the script again .

Okay - looked at it... I'm not sure how I'd take it...

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was a letter to King George of England, listing all their grievances against him and the reasons they felt they had to declare the colonies "free and independent states." They were justifying their actions.

It could also be considered a last-ditch effort at reconciliation with England. That could be something they would disagree on.

They could also disagree on what acts by England should be included.

I have several copies of the full text of the Declaration around here, as well as some books on it, but I've got to leave the house for a few hours to take my son's stuff to college. I'll try to post more when I get back.

Then maybe their argument could be over the issue of whether they should include in their list of grievences that Prince Charles is a jerk and they don't want to swear allegence to him. (Hey, trust me. As a Canadian, I've often wondered if I would have taken an oath of loyalty to the monarchy - which was required on my being called to the bar - if Charles had been king )

ML

/highjacks thread/

ML is doing research

So, it's a 20th century Declaration of Independence? Sounds like an else-world fic or a Tempus-fic. Or an Else-Tempus fic.



/returns thread almost in prime condition/

Michael

Just to clarify for ML and other non-U.S. FoLCs, the Declaration of Independence does not serve the same function as the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundational document for the U.S. government and is therefore the place where the functions, duties, and limits of the government are laid out. That would be the place to address something like universal health care. It has a process for ongoing 'rivisions.' They're called ammendments. Once an ammendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution and has the same authority as the original parts. The first ten ammendments are the most famous--they're called the Bill of Rights and were a package deal without which some states would not ratify the original Constitution. But there have been others added over time. The most recent is the 26th, ratified in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years. This was a response to the military draft during the Viet Nam War, the theory being that if you're old enough to fight in a war, you're old enough to vote for or against the guys who sent you. The Contstitution is the final authority for all U.S. laws and courts.

The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, is mainly a list of grievances against King George III and the British parliament. It was primarily a public relations tool intended to explain the reasons for the American separation from Britain and to elicit sympathy and support from other European nations. (We couldn't have won the war without the help of the French.) It is historically conditioned and, although the preamble is often used for rhetorical purposes, it has no legal authority. There is no reason to 'revise' it because now that we have our independence it's moot. It's done its job.

Here's a link to the text if you'd like to read it for yourself: Declaration of Independence text

BTW, many Americans don't realize this distinction either, so the L&C writers are in good company.

Thanks, guys. I think I have what I need. Here's the sum total of what all this research has amounted to in my story (consider it a preview of sorts):



ML

To um, slightly, correct Happy [which is completely irrelevant ].

The most recent amendment is the 27th which says that any pay raises Congress votes for themselves don't take effect until the next election cycle. So if, for instance, Congress voted tomorrow to give themselves a 10% raise [that would be shocking, wouldn't it? :rolleyes: ], it wouldn't take effect until next January, after the election cycle.

I've heard it's undergoing some legal challenges, though I don't see how they could hold water. It was one of the original twelve proposed to be part of the Bill of Rights but it and one other [the details of which are escaping me at the moment] weren't passed. The argument is how could it be valid when it took over 200 years to ratify? In more recent years, there's a deadline - if it's not ratified by date x, then it's dead. But there was no deadline on this particular amendment. It was ratified by various states over the years until the Alabama legislature ratified it in 1992 making it part of the Constitution .

More info can be found here .

Another reason for ratifying the 26th amendment was to give those 18-20 year olds - the ones were most vocal in campus protests etc. - another viable outlet for their political opinions. When given the right to vote, they had a say in the process of the things they were so adamantly opposed to. Of course, history has shown that they are, by far, the lowest voting group of all - that is, they vote in lower percentages than any other age group.

Oh look, I'm still here!

I've read the beginning of ML's next fic which is wonderful..
I just don't get how this declaration of independence fits in...and I definitely don't remember Star's role in it.

gerry

Hmm, at the risk of stirring up politics, maybe they're making a different declaration altogether, like independence from China? From what I understand, the US owes China a lot of money, gets most of its product from there, and furthermore, they are a scarily big superpower. Someone once told me that China has the US in its back pocket. Maybe Ben and Tom want out?

Also at the risk of stirring up a political debate, let me say that a story in which Franklin and Jefferson agree that healthcare is a universal right, on akin to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would go very much against what we know their political thoughts and opinions to have been.

In modern times, we often talk of “rights” as those things, tangible or intangible, which everyone needs and which, just by common decency, everyone should have.

When the founding fathers wrote of our inalienable rights, however, they were referring not to things, or needs, but to those *freedoms* that everyone must have in order to live their lives as they see fit, free from encroachment by others. They saw each man as sovereign, with sovereignty over his own life.

We have long grown used to the idea of the federal government taxing the well-off in order to provide for the needs of the less well-off. This egalitarian concept, noble and benevolent as it sounds, would have been seen by both Franklin and Jefferson as a *violation* of that sovereign right of each man to keep and enjoy as he sees fit the fruits of his own labor. That any man could be said to have a “right” to have his personal needs met at another man’s expense through the confiscation of a portion of that man's property (i.e., his income) would have been seen by the founding fathers as a very clear case of encroachment, and as such would have been alien and antithetical to their understanding of individual rights.

Vicki -

I tend to agree with you but was using ML's modern day possible example.

You can see this if you look at the Constitution as well. Franklin was involved with it's authorship but I believe Jefferson was elsewhere. *If* Congress succeeds in passing a law that makes health ins. mandatory or you will be subject to huge fines, you can bet that it will have serious Constitutional/legal challenges which SHOULD overturn it.

Which shows how thoughts on individual rights have changed over time - Jefferson and Franklin would no doubt have agreed that it was the responsibility of the individual to ensure that his actions and inactions (and those of his subordinates be they slave or free) did nothing to knowingly harm others. However, history has shown that when individual morality is replaced by group-think and profit-at-all-costs 'morality', then there are no curbs on what harm can and will be done to others.

While the Founding Fathers would be horrified at income tax and government mandated universal health care, they would also be appalled by adventurism overseas, corporations with the rights of people (and none of the morality) and the fact that many individuals, through no fault of their own, have no way to support themselves and their families and no opportunity to improve their situation while others who have amassed fortunes not only do nothing to help, but actively work to deny them opportunity to help themselves.

I suspect Franklin would be more understanding of government stepping in to help ameliorate these problems - he invented the idea of the 'free lending library' after all.

Thanks, guys.

I really don't need any more information on Jefferson or Franklin's possible beliefs about health care. If you read through this thread, you'll see I've already scrapped that idea. I was looking for something for them to fight about that would be funny - and I think having them fight about who was crazier, King George or Prince Charles is funny. (Okay, so maybe I have a weird sense of humor)

But thanks for all your help.

ML (who really is trying to prevent this from becoming a political debate)

Avoiding political statements:

Happy Girl already gave a great explanation of the Declaration of Independence, but I wanted to add a historical note.

Although Jefferson was the main writer of the Declaration, Franklin was one of the other three committee members, and he did change some of Jefferson's wording. So I am sure they had some arguments when it was written.

(I teach a class on the American Revolution at the beginning of each school year, so I have both the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution on my iPod. The apps were free!)

Maybe Jefferson hates Franklin's hat?

Well, this might do - Franklin had an argument with Adams (and maybe Jefferson?) about what the national bird of the US should be. Franklin voted for the turkey. Yes, the turkey.

Here's his letter:

And if you've seen the movie, "1776" (which to me, really makes the events of that time come alive, no matter that it's a Broadway musical), there's a hilarious song that follows the debate about the national bird. (Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin compare the new nation to a bird in the egg.)

BTW, the national bird ended up (no surprise here) being the eagle.

Jefferson iirc wanted the dove...