Is July 4th really our "Independence Day"?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by carpro, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Is July 4th really our "Independence Day"?

    The actual vote took place, and the Declaration was adopted, on July 2nd with a vote of 12 yeas and one abstention.(New York)

    For the next 2 days, Congress polished the language of the Declaration, the document was officially adopted on that day...but only 2 men signed it on that day, John Hancock and Charles Thomson.

    Shortly after that, a local printer printed about 200 copies and had them distributed throughout the 13 colonies. When the colonists saw July 4th on the printed copies, they mistook the day of adoption as the date of the vote.

    In fact, it wasn't until August 2nd that the majority of the signers affixed their signatures to the "unanimous" Declaration, the one on display in the National Archives.

    Finally, the group of men who signed the Declaration on August 2nd were not the same men who voted on July 2nd to adopt it. The final delegate signature was not obtained until 1781.
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't matter. The important thing is it is a holiday that can't be moved to a monday. Employers hate mid week holidays.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I think I remember where John Adams predicted that the 2nd would be the day celebrated with fireworks and such - hmm, need to google it I guess :)
     
  4. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Have you looked at the treaty of 1783?

    The war ended in 1781 the treaty didn't come until 1783.

    Just a little something I found on this subject not sure what to make of it or how much stock to put in it:

    "In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. ......................................... on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

    If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won."

    So are we truly independent of England?

    Again this was from an article I foind and pasted here.
     
    #4 revmwc, Jun 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2011
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    I believe you are correct and it was with good reason Adams made the prediction, but the printing date became the day we celebrate. Strange how things work out sometime.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Could it be that England was just in a state of denial?;)

    Or is it possible that the king wanted to continue to do business with Americans and wanted assurance that any further English business ventures would recieve any monies due them?

    England, believing they owned the sea, gave up a lot when it granted the "right" to fish the waters off the American coast to Americans. Otherwise, with the British navy as stong as it was, American shipping would have been continually under attack.

    Just thinking outloud.:type:
     
  7. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Many of the things contained in the treaty are still in existence today and according to the article changes were made to it in 1978 under then President Carter.


    More from the article:

    "All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

    -CITE-
    26 USC Sec. 1491

    HEAD-
    Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

    -STATUTE-
    There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess of -
    (1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
    (2) the sum of -
    (A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus
    (B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.

    -SOURCE-
    (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

    -MISC1-
    AMENDMENTS
    1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing.
    1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
    (1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.
    (1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par.
    (2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).
    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
    Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'
    EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
    Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.' "

    Again it is still in effect today.

    Intersting things in this article.
     
  8. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    There is a lot of nonsense in that article (which I found online). Much hullaballoo about Franklin's using the affectation of esquire. And the British sacked Washington to obscure ratification of the "missing" 13th Amendment (an amendment much loved by tax evaders)? Please. BTW: There is not 12th article as mentioned.

    I recommend you read the Treaty of Paris for yourself. George does not, as the article claims, present himself as king of the United States. George (with his multitudinous titles) is one party; the United States is the other party. George would never claim to be president of the United States, an entity that did not even exist before the war and which had no legal status in English law.

    The Treaty of Paris makes no mention of the king's income. And the fishing rights were to areas still possessed by England, such as Labrador and Newfoundland.

    It is true that the English did not scrupulously follow the provisions of the treaty as far as relinquishing some of the territories and forts, but that was essentially ratified by the Jay Treaty. It is also true that the U.S.-Canadian boundary description in the treaty is a bit befuddled because it was based on an inaccurate map. The boundary had to be settled by other treaties and an international commission.
     
    #8 rsr, Jun 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2011
  9. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776​
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Thanks for finding that - I got distracted by grandkids :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...