The Law of Prägnanz and
Gestaltqualitat for the Political Conviction
of the United States Declaration of Independence
by
Dallas F. Bell, Jr.
1.
Introduction
Max Wertheimer (1880-1943)
began experimental studies in human perception that led to Gestalt psychology.
Gestalt (German; literally meaning shape or form) has been defined as
an integrated whole which is greater than the sum of its parts.
Wertheimer observed that humans perceive motion when there is a rapid
sequence of individual sensory events. For example, lights on
a Christmas tree seem to move as they each turn on in sequence--phi
phenomenon. As each individual light turns on, their relationship
to the other lights makes a whole that gives the effect of motion.
1.1. The Law of
Prägnanz
The law of prägnanz
(German meaning conciseness) is considered a fundamental principle of
Gestalt perception. The law implies that humans are innately programmed
to experience things in a regular, orderly, simplistic and symmetrical
manner. Those aspects refer to six specific gestalt laws.
The first law is the law of closure that says the mind will experience
elements it does not perceive with the senses in order to complete a
figure (e.g. if a small portion of a rectangle's edge is missing the
mind will close the gap and perceive a rectangle.) The law of
similarity describes the mental grouping of elements into collective
totalities such as rows of black and white dots or rows of Os and Xs.
The third law addresses the proximately of things where those that are
close seem to be a whole, as in a sequence of small circles in a row.
The law of symmetry says that symmetrical images are perceived as a
whole in spite of distance. For example, sets of brackets may
be close together but each set is perceived as separate from the other
sets. The fifth law, continuity, shows how the mind continues
visual, auditory and kinetically perceived patterns, such as two intersecting
lines will be perceived as two lines and not four angels. Lastly, the
figure-ground principle indicates humans have the innate tendency to
perceive one aspect of a figure from the foreground and another from
the background. There is only one image yet by re-perceiving another
view can be seen.
Systematic political science
expands the law of prägnanz to individual and societal behavior.
It recognizes that humans are innately programmed to experience things
in a regular, orderly, simplistic and symmetrical manner as they relate
to the Natural Laws of Freewill (NLF) and the monads of systematic theology. The
chosen theology directs the epistemology to perceive things in a sequence
consistent with beliefs. If a part is missing the mind will fill
in the gap, etc.
1.2. Gestaltqualitat
Gestaltqualitat refers
to a set of internal relationships of something that makes it a whole.
The unitary characteristic for human behavior is the Divine standard
and authority for behavior and the dependent configurations or pattern
of parts is compliance or noncompliance with NLF. All expression
of speech can be analyzed accordingly, especially political documents.
The zeta function could be used in comparative models.
(In an email exchange in January, 2008, between Oruganti Shanker
and Dallas F. Bell Jr., O. Shanker
affirmed the potential usefulness of the zeta function for analyzing
texts. He and Giovanni Motta authored the recent paper titled
"Use of Word Relationship Graphs to Analyze Texts in Different Languages.")
1.3. Political Conviction
Political conviction arises
from individual perceptions of persistent government inconsistently
with compliance of NLF. Individuals are convicted to act and form movements to redress the governmental wrongs.
To be convicted means to be rebuked or to be told a fault. A T1
conviction comes from God's Holy Spirit [John 16:7-11], the salvation
gospel [Acts 2:37], innate conscience [John 8:9, Romans 2:15], and the
Law, NLF {James 2:9]. For example, the people of the ancient city
of Nineveh were rebuked and told their violations of NLF by Jonah (c.
776 B.C.) They experienced repentance, reformation and survived
destruction [Jonah 3, Matt. 12:41]. People with T2 and T3 beliefs
will experience stress from the cognitive dissonance of not complying
with NLF and can be expected to oppose efforts of people with political
conviction.
The laws of prägnanz
can be seen as both descriptive (what happens) and explanatory (why
it happens) of behavior. They can then explain such political
documents as the United States Declaration of Independence.
2. The Divisions
and Analysis of the U.S. Declaration Of Independence
2.1. Divisions of
the Text
2.1.1
Opening Statement
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration
of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human
events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws
of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation.
2.1.2
Preamble
We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such
has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
submitted to a candid world.
2.1.3
Charges for Violations of NLF (a Partial Listing of NLF Violated)
He has refused his Assent to
Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. (La, Lb)
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them. (La, Lb)
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation
in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants
only. (La, Lb, 10)
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole
purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. (Lb, 8)
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. (Lb, 8)
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation,
have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining
in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without,
and convulsions within. (Lb, 6)
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing
to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. (Lb, 8)
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent
to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. (Lb, 8, 10)
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. (8, 10)
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. (Lb, 8,
10)
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures. (8)
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil power. (8)
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign
to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (8)
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: (8, 10)
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: (6, 9)
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: (8, 10)
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Lb, 8, 10)
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Lb,
8)
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences (Lb,
9)
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument (8)
for introducing the same absolute
rule into these Colonies: (8)
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Lb, 8)
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. (8, 9)
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
and waging War against us. (6, 8)
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people. (6, 8, 10)
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
(6, 8, 10)
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. (6, 8)
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured
to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,
whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all
ages, sexes and conditions. (6, 8, 10)
In every stage of these Oppressions
We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated
Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is
unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
2.1.4
Closing Statement
Nor have We been wanting in
attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to
time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction
over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration
and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity,
and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow
these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections
and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice
and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity,
which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of
mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives
of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing
to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,
do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of
Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved
from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally
dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power
to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,
and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of
right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
2.1.5
Signers; Theological/Epistemological/Eschatological Beliefs; Education;
Occupation(s)
Connecticut:
Samuel Huntington; Congregationalist;
Self-taught; Lawyer
Roger Sherman; Congregationalist;
Informal, Honorary M.A. from Yale; Cobbler/Surveyor/Lawyer
William Williams; Congregationalist; Graduate of Harvard; Merchant
Oliver Wolcott; Congregationalist; Graduate of Yale; Lawyer/Judge/Soldier/Sheriff
Delaware:
Thomas McKean; Presbyterian;
Studied under Francis Allison; Lawyer
George Read; Episcopalian;
Private school - Chester Pennsylvania, Philadelphia College, Law studies;
Lawyer/Judge
Caesar Rodney; Episcopalian; Informal; Judge/Sheriff/Plantation Owner/Soldier
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett; Episcopalian/Congregationalist; Mercantile; Merchant/Plantation
Owner
Lyman Hall; Congregationalist; Graduated Yale College; Physician/Minister
George Walton; Episcopalian/Anglican; Self-taught; Lawyer/Judge
Massachusetts:
John Adams; Congregationalist/Unitarian;
Graduate of Harvard; Lawyer
Samuel Adams; Congregationalist; Master of Arts, Harvard; Politician/Merchant
Elbridge Gerry; Episcopalian;
Graduate of Harvard College; Merchant
John Hancock; Congregationalist;
Graduated Harvard College; Merchant
Robert Treat Paine; Congregationalist/Unitarian;
Graduate of Harvard College; Lawyer/Judge/Scientist
Maryland:
Charles Carroll of Carrollton;
Catholic; Jesuits' College at St. Omar, France; seminary in Rheims;
Graduate, College of Louis the Grande; Bourges; studies in Paris; Studies,
apprenticeship in London; Scholar/Merchant/Plantation Owner
Samuel Chase; Episcopalian; Classical education in Law, Baltimore; Lawyer/Judge
William Paca; Episcopalian; Philadelphia College, Studied Law at Annapolis;
Lawyer/Judge/Plantation Owner
Thomas Stone; Episcopalian; Parish School, Law Studies; Lawyer
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett; Congregationalist; Medicine; Judge/Physician
Matthew Thornton; Presbyterian; Educated in Worcester, Massachusetts;
Physician
William Whipple; Congregationalist;
Common School; Judge/Soldier/Merchant
New Jersey:
Abraham Clark; Presbyterian;
Self-taught, Surveying, Law; Lawyer/Surveyor/Sheriff
John Hart; Presbyterian; Farming;
Land Owner
Francis Hopkinson; Episcopalian;
Graduate of the College of Philadelphia; Lawyer/Judge/Author/Musician
Richard Stockton; Presbyterian; West Nottingham Academy, Graduate of
College of New Jersey; Lawyer
John Witherspoon; Presbyterian; Master of Arts, University of Edinburgh;
Doctorate of Divinity, University of St. Andrews; Minister/Author/Educator
New York:
William Floyd; Presbyterian; None; Land Speculator
Francis Lewis; Episcopalian;
Westminster; Merchant
Philip Livingston; Presbyterian; Graduate of Yale College; Merchant
Lewis Morris; Episcopalian; Graduate of Yale College; Plantation Owner
North Carolina:
Joseph Hewes; Quaker/ Episcopalian;
Graduated Princeton College; Merchant
William Hooper; Episcopalian; Harvard College; Lawyer
John Penn; Episcopalian; Informal; Lawyer
Pennsylvania:
George Clymer; Quaker/ Episcopalian;
Private; Merchant
Benjamin Franklin; Deist with
Episcopalian influences; Self-taught, apprenticed as a printer. Honorary
Doctor of Laws, Universities of Edinburgh and Oxford; Scientist/Publisher
Robert Morris; Episcopalian;
Private and Apprenticeship; Merchant/Land Speculator
John Morton; Episcopalian; Informal; Judge/Farmer
George Ross; Episcopalian;
Private, Classical. Read law in Philadelphia; Lawyer/Judge
Benjamin Rush; Presbyterian;
B.A. at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton), M.D. at the University
of Edinburgh; Physician
James Smith; Presbyterian; Informal, Classical education. Apprenticed
law with brother George; Lawyer
George Taylor; Presbyterian;
Ironmaster; Merchant
James Wilson; Episcopalian/Presbyterian; Attended the Universities of
St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh; College of Philadelphia. Honorary
M.A. from Philadelphia College, studied Law with John Dickinson; Lawyer/Judge
Rhode Island:
William Ellery; Congregationalist;
Harvard College; Lawyer/Judge/Merchant
Stephen Hopkins; Episcopalian; Self-Educated; Lawyer/Educator/Merchant
South Carolina:
Thomas Heyward, Jr.; Episcopalian; Private classical education, Law
studies in America and England; Lawyer/Plantation Owner
Thomas Lynch, Jr.; Episcopalian; Graduated Cambridge University; Lawyer
Arthur Middleton; Episcopalian; Graduate of Cambridge; Plantation Owner
Edward Rutledge; Episcopalian/Anglican;
Graduate of Oxford, Studied at Middle Temple (London), Member of the
English Bar; Lawyer/Plantation Owner
Virginia:
Carter Braxton; Episcopalian;
William and Mary College; Plantation owner
Benjamin Harrison; Episcopalian;
Attended William and Mary College; Plantation Owner/Politician
Thomas Jefferson; Deist with
Episcopalian influences; William and Mary College; Lawyer/Plantation
Owner
Francis Lightfoot Lee; Episcopalian;
Private; Plantation Owner
Richard Henry Lee; Episcopalian;
Private school at Wakefield, Yorkshire, England; Plantation Owner/Merchant
Thomas Nelson, Jr.; Episcopalian;
Private, in England. Graduate of Cambridge; Merchant/Plantation Owner
George Wythe; Episcopalian;
Informal, Law Studies; Lawyer/Educator
2.2. Analysis of the
Divisions
face="Arial" >
The opening statement alludes
to the fact that, in time, political systems must be opposed in order
to comply with innate NLF that emanate from the infinite God of the
first cause of all effects. In the preamble, compliance with NLF
requires the alteration or abolishment of government systems that oppose
the political convictions of truth whereby is the unalienable rights
for mankind. The indicting charges for violating NLF show the
unfitness of the government to rule which no longer has Divine authority
or standards. Because for governments to violate or allow violations
of NLF, such as committing robbery or murder, means that people cannot
meet their needs if their legitimate earning are stolen or if they are
murdered. The closing statement demonstrates that the process
of peaceful appeals for change to compliance with NLF and separation
to independent states, to include war, is warranted by the Supreme Judge
of the world--the God of the Bible. The signers were all Christians
or were influenced by Christianity's compliance to NLF. They
all demonstrated (education, writings and occupations) that they were
likely in the top percentile of problem solving abilities or IQ.
This would make their document a T1 text. The signers were opposed
by people with T2 and T3 beliefs, by those that did not understand the
Divine role of government, and by those that failed to act due to the
(evil) spirit of fear. (It should be noted that the Christian
denomination of Congregationalist refers to the protestant church at
that time that claimed independence from a corrupt elite church hierarchy.
They established the colleges of Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth etc. and the
Baptist church came from that movement.
3. A Contemporary
Declaration of Independence
Staying with the U. S. as a
model, the declaration would be made by localities to the state and
the U.S. federal government and/or states to the U.S. federal government.
The divisions of the opening statement, the preamble, and the closing
statement would express much of the same logic as in 1776. The
British references would be applied to the state and/or federal government.
In no particular order, a partial listing of contemporary charges and
their violations of NLF would likely be as follows.
For being guilty until proven
innocent in indiscriminate road blocks etc.: (8, 9, Lb)
For confiscation of private
property by the government and private entities: (8, 10, Lb)
For the government sanctioned
killing of unborn babies and the helpless: (Lb, 6)
For exploiting the poor with
government gambling schemes: (Lb, 8, 10)
For the lack of vigorous prosecution
and sentencing of child rapists and perverts: (Lb, 7, 9)
For confiscating over 55 percent
of the legitimate earnings of the average citizen through taxes and
fees: (Lb, 8, 10)
For ordering the use of private
entities, such as commodes, light bulbs, seat belts etc.: (Lb)
For the government schools
prohibiting the teaching of the infinite God of the first cause of all
effects and His NLF: (La, 1)
For forcing the nation-state
of Israel to relinquish its Divine lands: (La, 8)
For indiscriminate collecting
of information on citizens and not restricting private businesses'
information collecting efforts and using those businesses as surrogate
information collecting agencies: (Lb)
For deciding private family
matters and confiscating over 50 percent of inheritance assets: (Lb,
5, 8, 10)
For removing copies of NLF
from government buildings and schools: (La, 1)
For dictating behavior on private
property, such as prohibiting smoking: (Lb, 8, 10)
For destroying the best health
care system the world has ever known: (Lb, 6)
For allowing the estimated
amount of one combat regiment of illegal immigrants per day to invade
the country. They account for over 25 percent of crime and hospital
nonpaying patients in many states: (La, Lb, 6, 8, 9, 10)
For attempting to hinder the
rights of law abiding citizens to own weapons and have self-defense:
(Lb, 6, 8)
For preventing business owners
to provide goods and services to those they choose: (Lb, 8)
For preferring one law abiding
group over another law abiding group in education and hiring policies,
including Title IX sports: (Lb, 8, 9, 10)
For giving the proper right
of marriage to perverts: (La, 1)
For not prosecuting pornographic
activities: (Lb, 7, 8)
For not restricting blasphemous
speech: (La, 1, 3)
For allowing the effeminate
and criminals to occupy the military and police
agencies: (1, Lb)
For turning government decision
making authority over to other governments and the United Nations: (Lb,
8)
As can be seen there are as
many serious, if not more, violations of NLF today as there were in
1776. This political document could be expected to be signed by
much the same people as the original in 1776. It would also be
opposed by people for the same reasons. International intervention
would likely be opposed to the compliance with NLF but diplomatic efforts
could still be made using the enemy of my enemy is a friend philosophy.
4. Conclusion
It is said that nature abhors
a vacuum. If one theology is rejected by individuals and society
then another theology must replace it. A war for independence
(1861-1865) was conducted by the U. S. southern states. Those
states were called the Bible belt for their historical orthodox Christian
beliefs. Based on a 1860 census 6 percent of all northern or federal
white males 18-33 years of age and 18 percent of all southern white
males 18-33 years of age were killed. In today's numbers, the
total would be approximately 9 million killed. The southerners
died for states rights over federal control. This was for far
less noncompliance with NLF by the federal government than arguably
exists today.
The principle of uniformity
states that causes in the past are the same as causes now, i.e. the
same NLF that dictated a past declaration of independence will also
predictably provide the authority and standards for declarations in
the future. If the same 5 to 15 percent of the U.S. population
became active in an effort today, as was the case in 1776, the numbers
would be 15 to 45 million supporters of a declaration. Strategically,
that would be a more than adequate number to be operationally successful.
New
Федор
Достоевский,
commonly translated from Russian as Fyodor Dostoevsky, wrote
Идиот, (The) Idiot, in 1868. His
character, Myshkin, was a Christian that sought compliance with NLF
whereas the character of Rogozhin was devilish and noncompliant with
NLF. They both loved Nastasya but Rogozhin killed her. Those
two characters expressed two views or perceptions (love) of the same
object (Nastasya) which led to different behavior. The political
elite in Dostoevsky's novel acknowledged Myshkin's good but chose
Rogozkin's evil.
In due season
[Eccl. 3:1-8], either individuals become politically convicted and reform the society to NLF
or the society will justly be destroyed from violations of NLF with
revolution occurring. The presented Declaration of Independence
is a model which expresses that viewpoint. In the absence of a
reformation, it would logically be treasonous to God not to act on His
NLF. That imperative would be for the survival of the innocent
and so would be the Godly duty of mankind. A homeschooled attorney and U.S.
founding father named Patrick Henry made a proper conclusion to this
thought with a somewhat timeless summary in the following speech on 23 March, 1775.
Patrick Henry's Text
at St John's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia
No man thinks more highly than
I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen
who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same
subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought
disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of
a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments
freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question
before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own
part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery;
and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom
of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at
the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God
and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through
fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason
towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of
Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural
to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes
against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she
transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in
a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the
numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not,
the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my
part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the
whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which
my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no
way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past,
I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry
for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have
been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious
smile with which our petition has been lately received?
Trust it not, sir; it will
prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with
a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports
with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our
land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?
Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must
be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.
These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments
to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial
array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement
assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy,
in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies
and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be
meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those
chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what
have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been
trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon
the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of
which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to
entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have
not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive
ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert
the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated;
we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne,
and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of
the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances
have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have
been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the
foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the
fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room
for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those
inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if
we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been
so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon
until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must
fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the
God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are
weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall
we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it
be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed
in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction?
Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely
on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies
shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a
proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our
power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and
in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force
which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight
our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies
of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant,
the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were
base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!
Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and
let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate
the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace.
The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north
will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are
already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen
wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to
be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty
God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me
liberty or give me death!
---------------ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
© 2008 DALLAS F. BELL, JR.-------------------
