Search This Blog

Friday, July 3, 2026

General Washington And The Other Declaration of 1776

 This Fourth of July, Americans rightly celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—the document drafted in Philadelphia, then debated, amended, and approved in the Pennsylvania State House, the building posterity would know as Independence Hall.

We remember Jefferson’s timeless words, which still echo today. We remember the delegates pledging to one another their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. We remember the parchment that proclaimed a new nation and announced to the world the principles upon which it would stand.

But while one declaration was taking shape in Philadelphia, another was issued less than a hundred miles away in New York.

It came not from Congress, but from the commander in chief of the Continental Army. It was not written to justify independence before the nations of the world, but to prepare ordinary men to fight—and perhaps die—for a country that had scarcely begun to exist and for the principle upon which the American experiment would rest: liberty.

On July 2, 1776, Congress adopted Richard Henry Lee’s resolution declaring that the united colonies “are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” Over the next two days, the delegates turned their attention to the document explaining that momentous decision, revising Jefferson’s carefully wrought prose—much to the chagrin of the young Virginian—before formally adopting the Declaration of Independence on July 4.

And yet, that same July 2, British forces were arriving in New York and coming ashore on Staten Island. A vast armada was gathering in the harbor. British regulars—soon to be joined by thousands of German auxiliaries—were assembling for a campaign intended to crush the rebellion and seize the city whose waterways offered command of the Hudson River and access to the interior of the continent.

General George Washington stood between the combined military might of the British Empire and the American cause.

He could not yet have known that Congress had voted for independence that day. Official word and a copy of the Declaration would reach him later, and on July 9 he would order the document read aloud before his assembled troops. Yet his general orders of July 2 seemed almost to answer the vote in Philadelphia before news of it arrived.

Congress had declared what America was to be.

Washington declared what its survival would require.

His orders began in the ordinary language of military administration. General Mifflin was directed to hasten the construction of the defensive works near Kingsbridge. Militia detachments were shifted among commands. Sentries were instructed not to interfere with country people bringing goods to market, but to remain vigilant against soldiers deserting the army.

Then the voice of command rose to meet the magnitude of the hour:

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them.

The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army—Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect—We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world.

Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions—The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them.

Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for LIBERTY on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.

These were hardly ceremonial words delivered after victory. They were issued on the eve of a campaign in which victory would prove painfully elusive and Washington’s army would endure its darkest hour yet.

Nor did Washington allow this exalted language to become a substitute for the rigor of military discipline. Immediately after invoking unborn millions, the aid of the Supreme Being, and the eyes of his fellow citizens, he returned to the practical requirements of battle.

He urged his officers to remain cool when action came and expected the men beneath them to obey orders and hold firm. Courage would not go unnoticed, he promised, but neither would misconduct or neglect of duty. No one was to wander beyond the sound of the drums without written leave. Before dawn, the whole army was to be at its alarm posts with weapons and equipment ready.

Later that evening, Washington issued one final order. The soldiers were to sleep beside their weapons and be ready to turn out without warning.

The contrast within the orders is telling. Washington had appealed to liberty, posterity, and Providence, but he knew that lofty words would be of little use if the army failed at the ordinary duties of soldiering. The men would need to follow orders, remain near their posts, protect their ammunition, and answer the drums when they sounded. Congress could declare independence in Philadelphia. In New York, Washington’s soldiers would have to keep the army alive long enough to make that declaration real.

The alarm soon came.

In August, the Continental Army suffered a crushing defeat on Long Island. Only a daring nighttime evacuation across the East River saved much of the army from capture or destruction. The British then forced Washington from Manhattan, defeated him at White Plains, captured Fort Washington, and drove his dwindling army across New Jersey. By December, the cause that had seemed so radiant in Philadelphia appeared close to extinction.

In December, Thomas Paine published the first installment of The American Crisis, shortly before Washington crossed the Delaware and attacked Trenton. It began: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

But Washington had recognized the crisis months before Paine gave it words.

On July 2, while Congress declared independence, Washington warned his soldiers that independence might yet perish. He knew the army before him was inexperienced, imperfectly supplied, and about to confront one of the most formidable military powers in the world. He knew that the months ahead would bring test after test—not merely of the army’s ability to win, but of its ability to endure, remain intact, and fight another day.

Washington was not a literary craftsman in the manner of Jefferson, who could turn political philosophy into imperishable prose, or Adams, whose arguments surged with intellect and ardor. His characteristic language was more restrained—practical, deliberate, governed by duty, and informed by a sure instinct for what the moment required.

That makes the sudden grandeur of this order all the more striking.

Here was the judgment of a commander looking across New York Harbor at the assembled power of the British Empire. Washington understood that the army’s conduct would reach beyond the coming battle, beyond the men then living, and beyond the generation that had chosen independence.

All Americans born since that day—and all yet to come—are counted among those unborn millions.

The freedoms Americans celebrate 250 years later were once entrusted to this untested army awaiting an overwhelming enemy. Those freedoms depended upon men who did not know that Washington would someday become the father of his country, that the retreat through New Jersey would lead to Trenton, or that defeat and privation would ultimately give way to victory at Yorktown. They knew only that the alarm might sound at any hour and that they had been ordered to stand ready.

We rightly return each Independence Day to the parchment created in Philadelphia. It tells us why Americans were entitled to be free—because their Creator endowed them with the rights of a free people.

But Washington’s general order deserves a place beside it in our national memory, for it tells us what preserving that freedom would demand—and may always demand—from those entrusted with its care.

One document proclaimed a nation.

The other summoned Americans to preserve it.

Two hundred and fifty years later, the republic—and the freedom of untold millions of its citizens—still depend upon both.

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former public servant who writes on policy and history. He is President Donald J. Trump’s nominee to serve as General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, pending Senate confirmation. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/07/general-washington-and-the-other-declaration-of-1776/

Peskov: Germany confirms Russia's Nord Stream claims

 Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that Germany's decision to charge a Ukrainian citizen over the Nord Stream pipeline explosions confirmed what Russia had claimed "from the very beginning."

Peskov asserted the case showed "the involvement of the Kyiv regime and the Ukrainian state in terrorist activity and in a terrorist attack against critical infrastructure of the European Union." "All EU countries should take this case into account when they discuss Ukraine's prospects for EU membership, prospects for rapprochement with the EU, and so on," he told the reporters.

On Thursday, German federal prosecutors indicted Ukrainian national Serhii K., alleging he acted on behalf of Ukrainian state agencies in helping carry out the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. The indictment alleges the operation was intended to "permanently disrupt gas supplies through the pipelines and prevent Russia from using the revenue from natural gas trade to finance its war effort."

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Peskov:-Germany-confirms-Russia's-Nord-Stream-claims/66629130

Huge Security For Khamenei 'Multi-City' Funeral for Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, China, Russia

 Via The Cradle

Intensive preparations and security measures took place on Friday for late Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s massive funeral, as foreign officials and delegations began arriving in the country from dozens of nations to pay their respects. 

The heightened security measures, including airspace restrictions and mass deployment of security forces, began this week and extended into Friday.

via AFP

The event is being described as a "multi-city" funeral that will span several parts of Iran, including Tehran, Qom, and Mashhad. 

According to authorities, more than 10 million citizens are expected to gather in Tehran alone, with millions more expected to take part in ceremonies in the cities of Mashhad and Qom. 

Large-scale commemorations and ceremonies are also set to take place in Iraq, where the late Iranian leader was also revered. Tehran has coordinated these matters with authorities in Baghdad. 

The late supreme leader’s coffin arrived at the Imam Khomeini Mosalla in Tehran on Friday. 

Several Iranian officials were seen paying respects to the assassinated leader, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. 

Footage also showed Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif reciting a prayer in front of Khamenei’s coffin along with members of his delegation. 

Delegations representing Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Amal Movement and the Iraqi resistance faction Kataib Hezbollah were also present. 

Representatives from over 100 nations are expected to attend and have begun arriving, including from Turkiye, India, Russia, China, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"Ceremonies will continue on Saturday and Sunday with the body lying in state at the Grand Mosalla before a funeral procession through Tehran on Monday. Further rites are scheduled in the holy city of Qom, followed by ceremonies in Baghdad, Karbala, and Najaf in Iraq," IRNA reported. 

Public farewell ceremonies will officially begin on July 4 at 6:00 am. The late supreme leader is set to be buried in the city of Mashhad on July 9

The night before the preparations kicked off on Friday, the Commander-in-Chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi, was seen paying respects to Khamenei’s coffin in images released by Iranian media on Thursday evening. General Vahidi had not been seen in months. 

An Iranian military official warned the US and Israel on Thursday that any attack on the funeral or during its preparations will be met with a severe response. 

"We warn the ​enemies of Iran, especially the US and ​the Zionist regime, to avoid any miscalculation and ⁠to think about the harsh retaliation our armed ​forces would make to any threat and aggression against ​our country," said Ali Abdollahi, commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters. 

In February 2025, a squadron of Israeli fighter jets flew over the funeral of late Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah – who was assassinated by Tel Aviv in a brutal attack on Beirut in September 2024.

Khamenei was assassinated by the US and Israel on February 28 – the first day of the latest war on Iran.

Several members of his family were killed in the attack, including his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, and grandchild. His son Mojtaba, who was injured in that attack, has succeeded him as supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

Khamenei had refused to leave his residence despite warnings about a plot to kill him, telling his security team that he would only permit being moved to a safer location if the same could be done for 90 million Iranians. 

Similarly, Nasrallah had also refused to leave Beirut despite warnings prior to his assassination.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/massive-security-presence-khameneis-multi-city-funeral-amid-hezbollah-hamas-taliban

America’s Forgotten Jewish Roots

 by Bob Goldberg

America tells itself a pleasing story about its own origins. It imagines the Republic as the offspring of Athens, Rome, and the Enlightenment: Greek reason, Roman republican virtue, English common law, and French political theory, all finally brought to perfection in Philadelphia.

There is truth in this. But it is not the whole truth. The story is too marble, too secular, too clean. It omits the older and deeper source from which the American constitutional imagination drew much of its moral architecture: the Hebrew commonwealth.

The Founders were not creating a Jewish state. Nor were they trying to reproduce ancient Israel. They were doing something subtler and more consequential. They read the Hebrew Bible as a political text. They saw in Israel’s passage from bondage to law-bound nationhood the prototype of their own passage from imperial subjection to republican self-government.

That is why Exodus became America’s founding metaphor. The colonies were Israel. George III was Pharaoh. The Atlantic crossing became a kind of Red Sea. The wilderness was the hard school of liberty. And the Constitution, while emphatically not divine revelation, bore the unmistakable marks of covenant: “We the People... do ordain and establish.”

Begin with kingship. Before 1776, much English and colonial Whig thought remained accommodationist. A free constitution, it was believed, could coexist with monarchy so long as royal power was checked by Parliament. Britain could be regarded as “the best republic in the world, with a prince at the head of it.” In that older Whig view, republicanism was a question of balance, not of crowns.

Thomas Paine destroyed that compromise in Common Sense. He did not merely argue that hereditary monarchy was inefficient or imprudent. He attacked it as a theological absurdity. Kingship, for Paine, was not simply a bad institution. It was rebellion against God’s design for a free people.

His weapon was 1 Samuel 8. Israel demands a king “like all the nations.” The people make the request. It is, in one sense, democratic. Yet God calls it a rejection. Samuel warns the people what kings do: they take sons, daughters, fields, harvests, servants, flocks. They promise majesty and deliver expropriation. They offer unity and produce servitude.

Here was the biblical root of American anti-monarchism: the people may vote themselves into slavery. Consent alone is not enough. A crowd may demand its own chains and call them glory.

Paine drew from Milton, whose anti-monarchical theology itself rested on Hebrew Scripture, the Talmud, Midrash, and medieval Jewish exegesis. Harvard’s Eric Nelson has described this as the rise of “republican exclusivism”: the idea that monarchy is not merely compatible or incompatible with liberty depending on circumstance, but is inherently suspect, even idolatrous. By 1787, that Hebraic republican frame had become part of the Founders’ atmosphere.

It also found its way into one of the Constitution’s strangest clauses. Article IV guarantees every state a “Republican Form of Government.” Today the phrase sounds like civic wallpaper. In 1787, it had teeth. It meant that no state, even by popular decision, could convert itself into a monarchy. The federal government was obligated to prevent republican backsliding.

This is Samuel’s warning constitutionalized. Edmund Randolph made the analogy at the Convention: a state must not have the power to abolish its own republican character and restore kingship. A modern democrat might say that if a people unanimously votes for monarchy, the vote itself legitimizes the result. The Constitution says otherwise. Freedom is not merely majority preference. It is an order of government that protects the people even against their own periodic intoxications.

That Hebraic realism also underlies separation of powers. We usually give the credit to Montesquieu, whose Spirit of the Laws famously warned that liberty perishes when legislative, executive, and judicial power are united in the same hands. Fair enough. But Montesquieu was not the first to grasp the danger of concentrated authority.

As Ronan Shoval notes in his book Holiness and Society, Deuteronomy 17 and 18 had already sketched a polity of divided offices: king, priest, prophet. Later rabbinic thought spoke of the “three crowns”: Torah, priesthood, and kingship. No man could lawfully gather them all. The king could not usurp priestly authority. The priest could not seize kingship. The prophet stood outside both, armed with no army, no treasury, and no bureaucracy, yet empowered to rebuke king and priest alike.

This was separation of powers as moral anthropology. Power must be divided not because men are inefficient machines, but because men are sinners. Concentrated authority is not merely risky. It is corrupting because human beings are corruptible.

Madison’s line in Federalist No. 51 — “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” — reads like Enlightenment prose. Its anthropology is biblical. The Founders inherited from Hebraic and Puritan sources the idea that political systems must be built not for angels, but for fallen men. Checks and balances are not decorative. They are an institutional confession of human nature.

The American system does not assume that power will be purified by good intentions. It assumes that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. That is Madison. But it is also Samuel, Deuteronomy, and the prophets.

The same Hebraic inheritance appears in federalism. The word itself tells the story. “Federal” derives from the Latin foedus, meaning “covenant,” which is used to translate the Hebrew berith. Covenant is not contract in the thin modern sense. It is a binding moral and political act that creates a people through mutual obligation under a higher law.

At Sinai, Israel accepts the covenant and becomes “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This is not yet a modern nation-state. It is a covenanted commonwealth. Ancient Israel’s governance was layered: families, tribes, elders, princes, judges, and a national law. The tribes retained identity and local authority, yet belonged to a larger covenantal union.

This mattered deeply to American political thought. Samuel Langdon’s 1788 New Hampshire election sermon, delivered two weeks before that state’s decisive ratifying vote, made the parallel explicit. He described Moses’s rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, as well as the national council of seventy elders. The tribes, he noted, retained their own local elders and internal authority. Langdon called ancient Israel “a federal republic of tribes under a national covenant.”

The comparison was not eccentric. Reformation covenant theology had prepared the ground. Calvin, Bullinger, and Johannes Althusius treated legitimate society as a network of covenants: families into communities, communities into commonwealths, commonwealths into larger unions. The Mayflower Compact bound the settlers “in the presence of God” into a “civil body politic.” Connecticut’s Fundamental Orders of 1639 united Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield into “one Public State or Commonwealth” through “Combination and Confederation.” Donald Lutz called it the first expression of federalism in the American colonies — a document written by men who knew the political covenants of the Bible.

This is the forgotten background to the American federal system. It is not merely administrative convenience. It is covenantal architecture. Local authority is not a nuisance. It is part of the moral structure of self-government.

Israelite kingship was conditional; the king operated within covenant, not above it. In 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, the covenant involved the Lord, the king, and the people. When kings violated the covenant, their authority could be judged and revoked. This echoes in the American system, where power is delegated, limited, and revocable, as seen in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: authority flows from the people and states to Washington, not vice versa.

This Hebraic influence was not confined to abstractions. It entered the ratification battles directly. Benjamin Franklin’s only essay on the Constitution, published anonymously as “K” in the Federal Gazette on April 8, 1788, was no stray biblical flourish. It was a precision weapon.

Franklin imagined a constitution delivered by an angel and still greeted by opposition. Then he invoked Sinai itself: even the constitution God gave through Moses was resisted by “discontented restless spirits.” He went further, explicitly citing Josephus and the Talmud for details not fully narrated in Scripture. His subject was Korah: wealthy, ambitious, resentful, and skilled at dressing private hunger for power in the language of liberty.

The parallels were unmistakable. Korah’s complaints about the secrecy of Moses’s proceedings echoed Anti-Federalist attacks on the secrecy of the Philadelphia Convention. Charges that Moses intended to make himself an absolute prince mirrored attacks on the proposed presidency. The 250 “men of renown” who joined Korah’s revolt served as a jab at Anti-Federalist orators. Franklin was not proof-texting. He was translating constitutional polemic into the shared biblical language of his audience.

Both sides cited scripture during New York’s ratifying convention. Federalist Robert Livingston warned against rejecting good government out of perfectionism using 1 Samuel 8. Anti-Federalists John Lansing and Melancton Smith argued that people in distress might misjudge their problems and blame their constitution, as they believed Federalists did by abandoning the Articles. Massachusetts’s James Winthrop accused Federalists of trading a virtuous, decentralized government for imperial grandeur to be “like all the nations," echoing Israel’s idolatry.

That debate is nearly incomprehensible to modern secular ears. But to the Founding generation, Scripture supplied the common grammar of political argument. Donald Lutz’s survey of founding-era political literature found that the Bible was the single most-cited source, accounting for roughly a third of all citations. Deuteronomy appeared more often than Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. That statistic alone should demolish the idea that the biblical inheritance was merely atmospheric piety.

And yet it has been mostly ignored.

Why? Because the Hebrew commonwealth is too religious for secular historians, who prefer an America born from reason alone. It is too Jewish for Christian civil religion, which often absorbs Hebrew political ideas into a generalized biblical haze while forgetting their source. And it is too inconvenient for the myth that America was born almost entirely from classical reason and Enlightenment theory.

America cannot be fully understood without the Jewish political imagination: Exodus against Pharaoh, Samuel against kingship, covenant against arbitrary power, divided crowns against tyranny, and law as the condition of liberty.

Roger Sherman, the only Founder to sign the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, looked explicitly to the “civil polity of the Hebrews” as a model for republican design. In his 1784 Remarks on a Pamphlet, he drew lessons from Mosaic law: the Jubilee as a safeguard against permanent wealth concentration, the relative simplicity of Israelite statute, and the decentralized justice of elders at the gate.

The Hebrew Bible did not imagine liberty as liberation from law. It imagined liberty as lawful self-government. Judges at the gate. Elders in the city. Tribes under covenant. Kings under judgment. Power always answerable to something prior to itself.

The presidency, too, was shaped by this anxiety. The Framers needed an executive strong enough to govern, enforce law, and command in war. But they feared creating an elected king. Mercy Otis Warren called the proposed presidency the “foetus of monarchy.” The solution was not to abolish executive power, but to desacralize it. The president would be commander, magistrate, and law-bound officer — closer to the biblical judge than to the monarch. Joshua, Deborah, Gideon: leaders of energy and authority, but not kings, not idols, not hereditary sovereigns.

That distinction remains essential. The presidency is not a throne. It is an office. Its occupant is not the embodiment of the nation. He is the servant of a constitutional order that precedes him and will outlast him. The biblical judge helped solve the Article II problem: executive energy without executive idolatry.

The Founders did not copy ancient Israel. They were not theocrats. They did not mistake Mosaic law for American law. Their achievement was more profound. They took from the Hebrew commonwealth a structural mirror. A people comes out of bondage. It binds itself by covenant. It divides power because men are fallen. It rejects kingship because no man may stand as god over his fellows. It federates local communities into a larger union. It treats law not as the enemy of freedom, but as freedom’s condition.

That is the Jewish root of the American republic.

It matters now because America is again tempted by the oldest political seduction: the desire for saviors, tribunes, liberators, redeemers. They promise to embody the people, punish enemies, sweep aside institutions, and make politics simple. The Hebrew Bible knew this temptation well. “Give us a king,” the people say, “that we may be like all the nations.”

It is the most dangerous sentence in politics.

America was founded, in large part, to resist it. Athens gave us reason. Rome gave us republican memory. England gave us common law. The Enlightenment gave us rights, language and institutional theory. But Sinai gave us the indispensable warning: power is never sacred because man is never divine.

The American republic was born not only in Philadelphia, but in the long shadow of the Hebrew Bible. Its deepest constitutional instinct is not merely that government should be limited. It is that man must be limited, especially when he governs.

That is the ancient Jewish wisdom at the heart of the American experiment. No Pharaoh. No Caesar. No king like all the nations. Only a covenanted people, under law, forever struggling to remain free.

https://thenewzionisttimes.substack.com/p/americas-forgotten-jewish-roots