HILLSBOROUGH: Declaration had to embody compromise

   Summer’s celebratory high point is the Fourth of July week, when we celebrate the breaking of ties with our English administrators more than 235 years ago.
   Our Founding Fathers agreed to a Declaration of Independence, which was read publicly in town squares for the first time this week in 1776, as a broad statement of ideals on which to build a nation. In its composition, philosophical differences and political problems were put aside, deferring those details of “dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of justice” until years later, when, well, we ultimately fought a civil war to settle many of them.
   But in 1776 we could all pretty much agree on what we didn’t want — a king and a parliament governing us from afar with us having little say in the matters.
   The document was a masterpiece of idealism and resolve. It contained emotional, patriotic appeals and flowery ideals, but, at its core, the declaration is a statement of grievances and our intention to remedy them through our separation from our mother country.
   The statement was deliberately drafted with specifics on which everyone could agree — we didn’t want soldiers moving in our houses, for instance — while leaving out issues (liberty for all — including slaves?) that couldn’t be resolved right then.
   In the words we revere today, the members of the Constitutional Congress — men from all walks of life, from all parts of the country, from all intellectual points of view — could see what they wanted, leaving unsaid important matters to another day, to overcome the imminent challenge.
   To achieve a greater end, the Constitutional Congress had to compromise. That meant all sides putting aside their particular ideas for the higher purpose of coalescing and moving forward with a free, independent nation.
   We should that hold that declaration today not only as a vow of resolution and intention, but as an example of how we can put common aspirations and needs first. Too often today, we fight over the reasons we shouldn’t, or can’t, do something, rather than agreeing on a goal and figuring out the way to achieve it.
   It doesn’t have to be that way.