We have entered a period of 250^th American anniversaries, from the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775), through major dates in the first year of the War for Independence such as the founding of the U.S. Army (June 14, 1775), to the sesquicentennial of the Declaration of Independence one year from now on July 4, 2026.

Today — July 2025 — it is right and proper that we commemorate and compare an earlier declaration made by the Continental Congress: The Declaration of … The Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms of July 6, 1775.

Recall that the ‘shot heard round the world’ and the start of the war began in spring 1775, not 1776.  British redcoats attacked American colonials first in Massachusetts and, in June, Congress established a national army to be headed by George Washington.  Interestingly, Washington’s first day of command in Boston was July 4, 1775.

As General Washington was headed to Boston, the Congress sent a formal declaration to London, a document worth looking at this Independence Day 2025.  The document appeals to the divine Creator (“the Author of our Existence”), “principles of humanity,” and the dictates of common sense.  Thus, the colonists made their case not simply to the King or Parliament, but to the entire British citizenry as well as “the opinion of mankind … [as to] the justice of our cause.”  A year later, the 1776 Declaration will make a similar claim: “A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them…”

The 1775 Declaration of Causes and Necessities, largely written by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania with help from Thomas Jefferson, begins with an argument about the purpose of government: “government is instituted to promote the welfare of mankind.”  In contrast, the British government is a “dreadful authority” characterized in the opening paragraph as “ unbounded power,” “a legal domination,”  “severe and oppressive,” “cruel,” and possessing “intemperate rage for unlimited domination.”  The following year, the Declaration of Independence will cite “abuses,” “usurpations,” and “injuries” all intended toward “the establishment of an absolute tyranny.”

These are damning indictments of London.  The 1775 Declaration summarizes Britain’s purpose as squashing the colonists’ “civic and religious freedom.”

The 1775 document makes a beautiful argument that foreshadows what is to come in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.  The 1775 Declaration asserts that the best government is limited, that citizens are free men, and the justification for resistance is righteous indignation, not hate or vengeance.  When attacked, “The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people.”

Both documents have lists of specific grievances.  For example, the 1775 Declaration catalogues:

Parliament … in the course of eleven years, [has] undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the “murderers” of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace… (Emphasis in original)

The 1776 Declaration makes a similar set of claims.  [The] King of Great Britain [has]:

“He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good…He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance…He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly…He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers…He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures…He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power…For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; For imposing taxes on us without our consent; For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury; For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses; For abolishing the free system of English laws … For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments …For suspending our own legislatures…He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us…He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people…He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation…He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored 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…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.

For those who question whether or not the American War for Independence began as a ‘just war,’ we see the primary criteria right here in both documents.  In 1775, the Continental Congress was a duly authorized government representing the states (legitimate authority).  It argued for just cause (self-defense) based on right intentions (righteous indignation, protection).  Note, the colonists had to take up arms – it was last resort – since they had already sent nearly a dozen previous letters and petitions and tried the equivalent of today’s economic sanctions (“break off commercial intercourse”) by refusing to purchase certain British goods.

In conclusion, this week we recognize the 250^th anniversary of The Declaration of … The Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms of July 6, 1775.  Its conclusion should be inspiring for all Americans:

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. — We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favor towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves.

With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.