Was the Declaration of Independence intended to be a formality Declaration of war? Why or why not?
Answers
Answered by
0
This is great question for a formal debate. But the way your question is stated it looks as if your teacher simply wants you to take a side in a written paper. Let me know if it is for a debate because the structure of your argument will differ somewhat.
If your response is to be a paper you can answer either way. Let's say you argue, "No." Here's a good way to structure your paper.
First, establish a definition of "formal declaration of war." In the 1700s nations declared war on one another in essentially the same way as they do today -- it just took a little longer for messengers to arrive at each nation's capital with the declaration. If you have time to research, you may want to cite names of ambassadors of any two nations (e.g. the ambassador from England to France; Germany's ambassador to Spain, etc.), how they communicated, or even how they were recalled in cases when two nations were in a dispute that lead to war. You might want to pick two examples of how war had been declared by, England, France or Spain, prior to July 4, 1776 -- since those nations were at war with one another off-and-on over a period of two centuries.
So, in developing your paper you might follow this structure:
1. What does it mean to issue a "declaration of war?" European nations in the 1700s routinely fought battles between one another without declaring war. So, after the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, everyone knew there would be a fight between armed forces of Colonies and Great Britain -- but no formal declaration was given by either the American Colonies on England, or visa versa. You might argue that the Colonies did not have standing to declare war on anyone. If you consider that argument in reverse, even King George III did not see fit to consider declaration of war but rather issued a Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition in August 1775, having declared the American Colonies "in rebellion against the Crown" -- a rebellion is generally considered to be a civil war, and civil wars rarely involve a formal declaration of war as it was generally understood to be needed between two sovereign nations during the 1700s. The Colonies simply had no ground to stand on to declare war on anyone.
I hope the answer is clear
Pls mark me as brainlist
#Nisha
If your response is to be a paper you can answer either way. Let's say you argue, "No." Here's a good way to structure your paper.
First, establish a definition of "formal declaration of war." In the 1700s nations declared war on one another in essentially the same way as they do today -- it just took a little longer for messengers to arrive at each nation's capital with the declaration. If you have time to research, you may want to cite names of ambassadors of any two nations (e.g. the ambassador from England to France; Germany's ambassador to Spain, etc.), how they communicated, or even how they were recalled in cases when two nations were in a dispute that lead to war. You might want to pick two examples of how war had been declared by, England, France or Spain, prior to July 4, 1776 -- since those nations were at war with one another off-and-on over a period of two centuries.
So, in developing your paper you might follow this structure:
1. What does it mean to issue a "declaration of war?" European nations in the 1700s routinely fought battles between one another without declaring war. So, after the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, everyone knew there would be a fight between armed forces of Colonies and Great Britain -- but no formal declaration was given by either the American Colonies on England, or visa versa. You might argue that the Colonies did not have standing to declare war on anyone. If you consider that argument in reverse, even King George III did not see fit to consider declaration of war but rather issued a Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition in August 1775, having declared the American Colonies "in rebellion against the Crown" -- a rebellion is generally considered to be a civil war, and civil wars rarely involve a formal declaration of war as it was generally understood to be needed between two sovereign nations during the 1700s. The Colonies simply had no ground to stand on to declare war on anyone.
I hope the answer is clear
Pls mark me as brainlist
#Nisha
Similar questions