^[1] David Barton, Celebrate Liberty! Famous Patriotic Speeches & Sermons, 190 (Aledo, TX: WallBuildersPress, 2003).

¹ Adams—who had played an active role during the American Revolution—was now speaking at a celebration six decades later, thus making him “a fellow citizen of a former age.”

² It seems unimaginable today that “tens of thousands” in the then extremely religious New England region would abstain “under the dictate of religious principle” from celebrating Christmas (which today has become such a prominent religious holiday), yet such was the case. Why? Because the Pilgrims and Puritans of New England found no Biblical precedent for a public celebration of that day (recall that the goal of these groups was to simplify religious worship and to cut away all religious rituals and celebrations not specifically cited in the Bible); nothing in the Bible established any date for the birth of Christ; the holiday was instead established by Roman tradition, thus making it—in their view—one of the many “pagan” holidays that had been inculcated into the corrupt church that had persecuted them, and which they and other religious leaders wished to reform. Consequently, Christmas in New England remained a regular working day. In fact, Massachusetts passed an anti-Christmas law in 1659 declaring: “Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, or the like, either by forbearing [ceasing from] labor, feasting, or any other way upon such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for each offense five shillings as a fine to the country.” The law was repealed in 1681, but the holiday still was not celebrated by religious non-conformists or dissenters (i.e., the Puritans and Pilgrims); it usually was celebrated only by a few Anglicans (later Episcopalians), Catholics, and other more formal or high-church-tradition New England families. It was not until the 1830s and 1840s (at the time of this oration) that Christmas celebrations were just beginning to be accepted in New England (primarily due to the influence of large-scale Christmas celebrations in cities such as New York)—although as late as 1870 in Boston public schools, a student missing school on Christmas Day could be punished or expelled. By the 1880s, however, Christmas celebrations had finally become as accepted in New England as they were in other parts of the country.

³ To many today who know that there were fifty-six who signed the Declaration of Independence, JQA’s reference to fifty-five seems an error; yet it is not. Actually, both fifty-five and fifty-six are correct.

The Declaration of Independence was approved in principle on July 2^nd, 1776, and then approved by the full vote of Congress on July 4^th, 1776. At that time, the Declaration was signed only by John Hancock (President of Congress) and Charles Thomson (Secretary of Congress). On July 19^th, Congress agreed to prepare a beautifully engrossed copy of the Declaration to be signed by all the members. On August 2^nd, the proposed Declaration was signed in a formal ceremony by fifty delegates of Congress. Among the signers were several who originally had not been in Congress on July 4^th to vote for the Declaration (e.g., Benjamin Rush and James Smith); conversely, many who had voted for the Declaration on July 4^th were not there to sign it on August 2^nd (e.g., Robert Livingston and George Clinton). This was because several States had changed their delegates to the Congress between the vote on July 4^th and the signing on August 2^nd (e.g., George Clinton was called home to lead military forces in New York, while Benjamin Rush had been sent by Pennsylvania to replace a delegate who had voted against the Declaration on July 4^th). On January 18^th, 1777, Congress authorized the printing and public distribution of the signed Declaration. In the time between August 2^nd when the fifty delegates had first signed and January 18^th when the Declaration was authorized for printing, five more had signed: Matthew Thornton (NH), George Wythe (VA), Oliver Wolcott (CT), Richard Henry Lee (VA), and Elbridge Gerry (MA). Therefore, at the time of the congressional order to print the Declaration, fifty-five delegates had signed. Thomas McKean became the fifty-sixth to sign the Declaration—doing so nearly a year after the January 18^th order to print and distribute the Declaration. (Although McKean had voted for the Declaration on July 4^th, 1776, he did not sign until after January, 1778.) Therefore, at the time that Congress first printed and distributed the Declaration, it had only fifty-five signatures on the document; but within a year it had risen to fifty-six—the number at which it stands today.

⁴ The italicized lines in this part of the oration indicate direct quotes from the Declaration of Independence (unless otherwise identified).

⁵ The Great Charter is the Magna Charta, enacted in 1215 AD by Englishmen demanding protection from the arbitrary actions of King John against their persons and property. The Magna Charta was the first step in limiting governmental authority and granting rights to citizens—it was, in essence, the world’s first Bill of Rights.

⁶ The Declaration listed 27 grievances against Great Britain, including the abuse of representative powers (11 clauses), the abuse of military powers (seven clauses), the abuse of judicial powers (four clauses), and one clause each about Britain fostering domestic instability, opposing immigration, increasing government size and intrusiveness, interfering with foreign trade, and imposing taxation without representation.

⁷ See previous note three pages earlier on why JQA cites 55 rather than 56 signers.

⁸ There had occasionally been times when States or movements wrongly invoked the principles of the Declaration as a justification for weakening or dissolving the Union, such as in the Whiskey Rebellion (1794), the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798, 1799), the Hartford Convention (1814), and the South Carolina Nullification Convention (1832). In each case, the group—or State—threatened to declare its own independence from the United States, or unilaterally—as a single State—to declare national acts unlawful. It was this perversion of the principles of the Declaration that eventually was invoked by the South to justify its secession from the Union in order to form its own separate nation, thus precipitating the War Between the States.

⁹ It became clear during the American Revolution that some type of national government was needed; the war could not be effectively conducted through thirteen separate State governments. Consequently, in June,1776, Congress appointed a Committee of thirteen delegates—one from each State—to work out some agreement under which they could operate jointly while still maintaining their individual State sovereignty. Those on the Committee were a distinguished group, most of whom would eventually sign the Declaration of Independence and some of whom would later sign the US Constitution. This Committee constructed what became known as the Articles of Confederation, approved by Congress on November 15, 1777, but not ratified by the States until three-and-a-half years later on March 1, 1781.

The reason for this delay primarily lay in resolving questions surrounding the future ownership principally of the Ohio territory then claimed by Virginia. Each State had long-standing and universally acknowledged claims on territories that were within its State jurisdiction. For example, New York held the lands that in 1792 became Vermont; North Carolina held the lands that in 1796 became Tennessee; Delaware was part of Pennsylvania until 1776; Kentucky was part of Virginia until 1785; Maine was part of Massachusetts until 1820; etc. The Ohio territory (claimed by Virginia) was a massive area stretching from the Great Lakes in the north, along the length of the Mississippi River, and all the way to the “South Sea” (the Gulf of Mexico). Many of the other States wanted parts of this territory; however, Virginia ceded her rights to the Ohio Territory with the stipulation that the land would be used for the common good of the new nation rather than for any particular State. In short, several States had been reticent to approve a national government until the disposition of that (and other) territory had been settled.

Under the Articles of Confederation, a national Congress was established, but each State had equal power with all others without regard to representation. Additionally, agreement was not by the majority but rather by two-thirds of the States, thereby giving power to a block of any five States to thwart the will of the other eight. Furthermore, under the national government there was no judiciary and no “head” or executive and therefore no way to enforce the laws.

The weakness of this system—weaknesses incorporated because of the ardent State jealousies that caused the scope of powers of the national government to be over-restricted—soon became apparent to all. Congress had conducted its business throughout most of the Revolution (until the Articles of Confederation were officially ratified late in the war) on the majority vote principle. Had Congress been required to operate under the Articles of Confederation during the Revolution, it would have been completely powerless and ineffective—a fact that was made clear in the few years in which the nation did flounder under the Articles.

Further fueling discontent with the Articles was the fact that they actually protected and encouraged inequality rather than justice among the States. For example, States that had contributed the most during the Revolution (e.g., Connecticut and Massachusetts) were unable to receive their proper reimbursement because their repayment was opposed by States that had provided much less than their proportionate share (e.g., Georgia and South Carolina). The Articles indeed were “exhibited to the world only as a monument of impotence and imbecility.”

For additional information on the problems with the Articles of Confederation, see the note on pp. 109–110.

¹⁰ The “lyre of Orpheus” refers to a constellation of stars named “Lyre” (also spelled “Lyra”) that form a circle—like the bottom part of a stringed lyre. In Greek mythology, Orpheus had played the lyre skillfully and beautifully; when he was treacherously killed, Zeus retrieved the instrument and set it among the stars as a permanent memorial to Orpheus—thus the “lyre of Orpheus”. The thirteen stars that formed a circle in the first American flag were likened to the “lyre of Orpheus”—a permanent memorial (just like the stellar constellation)—a memorial that became “the standard [the symbol] of the Union.” Interestingly, the “lyre of Orpheus” was also a part of the Adams’ family seal, and it may well have been John Adams in 1777 (at that time serving on the American Board of War) who suggested the circle of stars as part of the flag. In short, Adams is saying that the non-ending circle of stars, reminiscent of “the lyre of Orpheus” and signifying the non-ending Union of the States then appearing on the American flag, had become the symbol for the Union.

¹¹ The phrase “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” was taken from one of the most famous and widely-used legal works of that generation: Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws by Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780). So influential was Blackstone on the thinking of the Founders that he is documented as the second most-invoked political authority during the Founding Era (1760–1805).

Blackstone’s Commentaries eventually became the official law book adopted by the US Senate, and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (appointed by President George Washington) declared that Blackstone’s views were heavily relied upon during the framing of the Bill of Rights. So important was Blackstone to America that Thomas Jefferson even commented that American lawyers used Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.

With the Founders’ heavy reliance on Blackstone, it is not surprising that many of them (including James Madison, James Wilson, John Adams, Henry Laurens, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Otis, James Kent, Joseph Story, Fisher Ames, and many others) either endorsed or relied on Blackstone in their own legal writings.

So how did Blackstone define “the laws of nature” and the laws “of nature’s God” (also called by Blackstone “the law of revelation”)—the phrase incorporated into the Declaration of Independence by the Founders? According to Blackstone:

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.… And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.… This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.… The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures [i.e., the “law of nature’s God”]. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature.… Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these.

While today “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” is not understood to be a significant legal phrase or even to carry any religious implications, the fact is clear that under the philosophy articulated by Blackstone and embraced and set forth in the Declaration by the Founders, civil laws could not contradict the laws of God revealed either through nature or the Bible—i.e., “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

¹² The “grant of authority from the successor of Saint Peter at Rome” (the Pope) for “converting the natives of the country to the Christian code of religion and morals” was actually more of an indirect grant of authority. That is, the Pope would sanction a Catholic monarch to develop the New World (or a particular region of it) and the Catholic monarch, when sending an expedition to that part of the New World, would dispatch Catholic missionaries to the Indians as part of the expedition. For example, after Pope Alexander VI (Pope from 1492–1503), a Spaniard, recognized Spain’s right to take possession of the entire New World following its “discovery” by Columbus, Spain dispatched numerous expeditions into Mexico, Central, and South America; on every expedition were missionary priests (usually Dominican, Franciscan, or Jesuit) to convert the Indians. Therefore, while “the grant of authority” for the New World came from the Pope, it was the Catholic monarchs—both French and Spanish—who implemented the missionary aspects of “converting the natives.”

The soldiers and leaders on these Catholic expeditions often resorted to violence “for taking possession of lands inhabited by men of another race,” although the forcible conversion of natives more frequently characterized Spanish than French missions. Pope Paul III (Pope from 1534–1550) later tried to change the “forcible conversion” policy, but his words were largely ignored by the monarchs. Spain and France both had been particularly unaffected by the Reformation and—providentially for American liberty—those two nations did not have much lasting influence in the settling of the eastern shore of America. (France’s influence primarily was to the far north, in and along Canada, while Spain’s influence primarily was in the far southern, southwestern, and western regions of the continent.) The colonists who arrived to settle America’s eastern seaboard were largely English and were steeped in the ideas of the Reformation rather than the Spanish and French models; and it was a notable distinction that they purchased rather than took lands from the Indians (e.g., the Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation Colony, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the settlers of the New Haven Colony, etc.)—a practice in direct contrast to the methods of settlement used in Mexico, Central and South America. That early favorable practice of the English religious settlers in the east regrettably was largely abandoned in America’s later westward expansion.

¹³ Examples of charters granted by English kings “for the same benevolent purposes” included the Charter of Virginia, issued by King James in 1606 for the purpose—among others—of “propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in those parts to human civility and to a settled and quiet government.” Other charters with similar declarations included the Charter of New England (issued by King James in November 1620), the Charter of Maryland (issued by King Charles in 1632), the Charter of Rhode Island (issued by King Charles II in July 1663), and the Charter of Pennsylvania (issued by King Charles II in March 1681) with its declared purpose “to reduce the savage natives by gentle and just manners to the love of civil society and Christian religion.”

¹⁴ The “spirit of adventure” that replaced the “benevolent purposes” of evangelization was seen in charters such as that of Georgia (1732) that declared one of its purposes was to “not only gain a comfortable subsistence … but also strengthen our colonies and increase the trade, navigation and wealth of these realms.” The 1^st Virginia Charter (1606) issued by King James I authorized the colonists “to dig, mine, and search for all manner of mines of gold, silver, and copper … and have and enjoy the gold, silver, and copper to be gotten.” The New York Charter (1663) issued by King Charles II similarly authorized the colonists to collect “revenues and profits” from the lands. In each case, the Mother Country (whether France, Spain, Holland, or England) wanted all the profits and commerce coming out of her colonies.

¹⁵ A “cruel and ignominious death” was definitely a certainty if the Revolution failed since the very act of separation was viewed by the king as an act of treason and therefore would have subjected the signers to the most painful forms of death. However, even though victory and independence were ultimately achieved for America, many of the signers still suffered a cruel death at the hands of the British. For example, of the 56 signers of the Declaration, nine died during the American Revolution, including three directly at the hands of the British; two others were so abused by the British as prisoners of war that they died shortly after the Revolution; two lost wives at the hands of the British (and four lost children in the same way); 17 had their homes, estates, or property pillaged or destroyed by the British; and many others paid similarly high prices. Therefore, even though death was a certainty if the signers lost the Revolution, it was no less a reality for many of them in fulfillment of their personal pledge of their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to achieve American independence….”

To read John Quincy Adams’ oration in its entirety, please click on this document.  John Quincy Adams, Oration - July 4, 1837

To check out additional information on the book from which this oration was found, you may go to www.wallbuilders.com or Amazon.com –  Author, David Barton, Celebrate Liberty! Famous Patriotic Speeches & Sermons, 190 (Aledo, TX: WallBuildersPress, 2003).