Views

Declaration Defends Two Core Principles

Details

Tuesday, 07 July 2026

Written by John Hood

As we gathered last week to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we remembered what makes our country exceptional — what makes it, despite evident flaws, so worthy of our loyalty and affection.

American exceptionalism isn’t about our country’s vast expanse and bounty of resources. Nor do we venerate the Founding as if the American people possessed superior virtues or talents.

While England was the most common origin of America’s progenitors, by 1776 there were sizable populations of people with Scottish, Irish, Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, Spanish, aboriginal, and African ancestry. Indeed, while New England was much less diverse, in the Middle and Southern colonies people with primarily English ancestry comprised only about 40% of the population.

What led to the Revolutionary War — and what sustained the American cause through its duration — was a commitment to traditions and ideas that arose in a specific historical context but had the potential for broad, even universal, application. Two of them, freedom and self-government, were related but distinct principles for which American patriots were willing to combat a world-spanning empire.

“My first wish is for America to be free,” said John Penn, one of North Carolina’s three signers of the Declaration. Like many other North Carolinians of the 1770s, Penn was a native Virginian who had headed south in pursuit of freedom (North Carolina was comparatively lax in enforcing conformity and collecting taxes) as well as greater economic opportunity (land was cheaper). 

A particular incident seems to have motivated his move. Penn, a lawyer, had been complaining publicly about Parliament taxing the colonies without their consent — that is, without having their own elected representatives in the body. According to family lore, someone reported Penn to the local authorities. He was charged and convicted of making disrespectful remarks about the king. A Virginia judge ordered him to pay a nominal fine of one penny.

Penn refused. Other members of his family had already moved to what is now Vance County, North Carolina. He joined them.

Can you spot both principles in question here? Penn was speaking in favor of self-government, that people living in a community ought to enjoy the civil right to help select those who populate and run its governmental institutions. But his personal freedom to express that view was a natural right, one that the civil authority had violated.

These ideas may have been expressed eloquently in English, but they had far older roots. The Greek philosopher Aristotle, for example, distinguished between two conceptions of liberty: a civic one that was “for all to rule and be ruled in turn” and a personal one, “that a man should live as he likes.”

Both sets of rights were and are important. And, of course, neither has been consistently defended and advanced, including here in America. At the time of the Founding, most Americans couldn’t vote. And colonial governments imposed a range of restrictions on the freedom of Americans, including the moral outrage of slavery.

But to observe that the Americans whose representatives gathered in Philadelphia in 1776 were inconsistent in their commitments to freedom and self-government is not to deny the significance of what transpired that summer. There are worse sins than shortsightedness or even hypocrisy, including having no principles at all. As Martin Luther King would later put it so memorably, the Founders had essentially written a “promissory note,” whether they realized it or not, to future generations. Fulfilling that obligation is an on-going project.

While not foreseeing all the consequences, the signers of the Declaration of Independence knew they were making history. Another North Carolina participant, William Hooper, celebrated “the important share which the colonies must soon have in regulating the political balance” by adopting a “constitution purged of [the] impurities” of English government and informed by “an experience of its defects.”

Our dual experiment in freedom and self-government continues. Human nature prohibits perfection. What makes America special, and worth celebrating, is the audacity of our aspiration.

Editor’s note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Troy's Perspective: County, City need to come together

Details

Tuesday, 30 June 2026

Written by Troy Williams

Cumberland County and Fayetteville are poised to tackle the important challenge of consolidating 911 services for our community. Although this is a long-overdue step, they are eager to move ahead and focus on creating a safer, more efficient future for all residents. But as they say, the devil is in the details.

What is the greatest challenge? Some things remain the same; the debate over who will oversee the services: Cumberland County or Fayetteville. This continues to influence the process. This long-standing power struggle between local officials has been a source of concern. Recently, efforts by Fayetteville Mayor Mitch Colvin and Cumberland County Board Chairman Kirk deViere to promote collaboration have been met with old conflicts resurfacing, reminding residents of the ongoing challenges.   

One key argument for Fayetteville leading 911 services is its high call volume. Since they handle the majority of 911 calls, it seems practical for them to be the lead agency. Explaining how call volume influences leadership decisions can help residents understand the practical factors at play and feel more informed about the process. However, addressing a specific caveat could change how this reasoning is viewed. 

Fayetteville has previously used, and perhaps still does allow, a high volume of non-emergency calls to be handled by its 911 operation. I know this to be a fact because several years ago, my wallet was stolen at a Fayetteville grocery store on a Friday night. I made several non-emergency update calls over the weekend and was instructed to use 911 because no other number was available. This raises the question: how many legitimate 911 calls is Fayetteville handling compared to the rest of the county? The Sheriff's Office has an alternate number for non-emergency calls to help ensure calls are directed appropriately. 

Fayetteville proudly serves as the county seat of Cumberland County, which is truly special. Remembering the surrounding communities, such as Eastover, Falcon, Hope Mills, Spring Lake, Godwin, Linden, Stedman and other townships, helps residents feel connected and that their voices matter. By working together, we can find a solution that benefits everyone and involves our community in shaping the future. 

It looks like there's a bit of a power struggle at the 911 call center controversy, but what matters most to residents is receiving the right help in emergencies. I truly believe that everyone wants an effective response, and nobody minds who's in charge if the right support arrives promptly. Prioritizing safety and reliable emergency services is essential for community trust and well-being.

Progress happens when leaders choose cooperation over conflict, unity over division, and the common welfare over political differences, working together for the benefit of the community. This approach can inspire residents to feel hopeful and confident about the future of our emergency services.

Cumberland County and Fayetteville are poised to tackle the important challenge of consolidating 911 services for our community. Although this is a long-overdue step, they are eager to move ahead and focus on creating a safer, more efficient future for all residents. But as they say, the devil is in the details.

What is the greatest challenge? Some things remain the same; the debate over who will oversee the services: Cumberland County or Fayetteville. This continues to influence the process. This long-standing power struggle between local officials has been a source of concern. Recently, efforts by Fayetteville Mayor Mitch Colvin and Cumberland County Board Chairman Kirk deViere to promote collaboration have been met with old conflicts resurfacing, reminding residents of the ongoing challenges.   

One key argument for Fayetteville leading 911 services is its high call volume. Since they handle the majority of 911 calls, it seems practical for them to be the lead agency. Explaining how call volume influences leadership decisions can help residents understand the practical factors at play and feel more informed about the process. However, addressing a specific caveat could change how this reasoning is viewed. 

Fayetteville has previously used, and perhaps still does allow, a high volume of non-emergency calls to be handled by its 911 operation. I know this to be a fact because several years ago, my wallet was stolen at a Fayetteville grocery store on a Friday night. I made several non-emergency update calls over the weekend and was instructed to use 911 because no other number was available. This raises the question: how many legitimate 911 calls is Fayetteville handling compared to the rest of the county? The Sheriff's Office has an alternate number for non-emergency calls to help ensure calls are directed appropriately. 

Fayetteville proudly serves as the county seat of Cumberland County, which is truly special. Remembering the surrounding communities, such as Eastover, Falcon, Hope Mills, Spring Lake, Godwin, Linden, Stedman and other townships, helps residents feel connected and that their voices matter. By working together, we can find a solution that benefits everyone and involves our community in shaping the future. 

It looks like there's a bit of a power struggle at the 911 call center controversy, but what matters most to residents is receiving the right help in emergencies. I truly believe that everyone wants an effective response, and nobody minds who's in charge if the right support arrives promptly. Prioritizing safety and reliable emergency services is essential for community trust and well-being.

Progress happens when leaders choose cooperation over conflict, unity over division, and the common welfare over political differences, working together for the benefit of the community. This approach can inspire residents to feel hopeful and confident about the future of our emergency services.

Know It. Live It.

Details

Tuesday, 30 June 2026

Written by Dan DeBruler

There's a reason the next generation isn't buying what we're selling.

It's not that the truth has lost its power. It's that too many of us have lost our grip on it — or more honestly, we've decided our judgment is better than the guidance we've been given. The problem isn't what we know. It's what we're willing to do with what we know.

America is celebrating 250 years of independence this year. I love this country, and I love what it was built on — the freedom to worship, to build, to chart a course toward something better. But here's something worth sitting with: what at first looked like rebellion in those early colonists became a full-scale exodus toward self-determination. The freedom to make their own rules. Decide their own future. Trust themselves more than anyone else.

Sound familiar? Because that same spirit — the one that says I know a better way — is alive and well today. And it's not just in the culture. It's in the church. It's in our homes. Maybe it's in the mirror.

We have more access to biblical truth than any generation that has ever lived. Bibles on every device, sermons on demand, podcasts for every theological question you could think to ask. And yet James didn't say blessed is the one who hears the most. He said, "Do not merely listen to the word... Do what it says." (James 1:22, NIV) That's the gap. That's where we're losing ground — not in the information age, but in the application of it.

Here's the honest part: application is hard. It's easier to attend another study than to forgive the person sitting across the dinner table from you. It's easier to know the right thing than to do it, especially when doing it costs you something. Most of us aren't wrestling with Greek verbs or systematic theology. We're wrestling with our temper. Our pride. Our silence when we should speak.

And the next generation is watching. What looked at first like youthful rebellion has become something more sobering — a full-scale exodus from the very idea of absolute truth. We can point fingers at social media, politics, the culture, the therapy industry. But maybe the most honest place to start is closer to home. In the mirror.

Because here's what Scripture doesn't leave us room to debate: "Whoever says 'I know him' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4, NIV) That's not my editorial opinion. That's the Word.

The value of knowing the truth isn't just personal. It's generational. Every time we choose to actually live what we say we believe — when we forgive when it's hard, when we speak truth when it's costly, when we love our neighbor in the specific and inconvenient details of real life — we're doing something far greater than just being obedient. We're giving the next generation something to hold onto.

The measure of our faith isn't what we know or even what we declare. It's what we're willing to do with it.

That's not just good theology. It's the whole thing.

1776: Carolinians set stage for Declaration

Details

Tuesday, 30 June 2026

Written by John Hood

As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, here is a question worth pondering: was the event it sought to explain and justify, the American War of Independence, fated to succeed?

Some historians say yes. They argue that while the rebellious colonies of North America contained a small population and limited military resources, they also comprised a sprawling territory that was simply impossible for any feasibly sized force of British regulars, auxiliaries, and Loyalist militia to subdue and hold.

Other historians disagree. While outright conquest might have been practically impossible, they correctly note that many colonists were Tory in their sympathies and an even-large swath were disinclined to fight on either side. A few decisive defeats, followed by the capture of key Patriot political and military leaders, might have induced some of the colonies to submit, they argue, leaving the remaining rump of revolutionary states too isolated and deprived of resources to continue their resistance.

I’m in the latter camp, at least regarding the first couple of years of the war. After the British realized they couldn’t hold rebellious Boston, their leaders formed the correct strategic insight: attack the enemy at its weakest point, not its strongest. They decided to redeploy their forces southward to remove the Carolinas and Georgia from the conflict. Virginia would have been their next target — and if it fell, the American Revolution would falter and, eventually, collapse.

It was Britain’s best play. It was not fated to fail. It was, over the course of six months, systematically defeated by the concerted efforts of a comparatively ragtag force of Patriots, most hailing from North and South Carolina.

During the first stage of the campaign, Patriots blocked a column of North Carolina Loyalists marching down the Cape Fear River to join up with an approaching invasion force of British redcoats. At the February 27, 1776, battle of Moores Creek Bridge, nearly all the Tories were killed, captured, or dispersed.

Weeks later, when British generals Henry Clinton and Charles Cornwallis finally converged on Wilmington, they discovered no reinforcements were coming. After some indecisive skirmishing, they decided to reembark on their ships and sail south to the port of Charlestown (now Charleston). Taking this largest city in the region would, they surmised, lead to the capture of the Carolinas.

Perhaps, at this early stage in the war, it would have. But Charleston had stout champions. Among them were soon-to-be-famous men such as Francis Marion, Thomas Sumter, and William Moultrie, a local militia colonel who deemed Sullivan’s Island at the mouth of the harbor as its most defensible point. It was Moultrie who supervised the construction of a fort made of palmetto logs.

In addition to these South Carolinians, Charleston’s defenders included hundreds of North Carolina militiamen from such counties as Bladen, Halifax, Mecklenburg, and Rowan. Some were stationed in the city itself, others on James Island or in other strongpoints ringing the harbor.

On June 28, 1776, the British attacked. Their warships pounded the fort on Sullivan’s Island. Their soldiers landed on its northern end. Neither gambit worked. After withering fire from entrenched Patriots, the redcoats withdrew. As for the fort, British cannonballs thudded ineffectually into its walls of spongy palmetto.

Charleston did fall — but not until 1780. By then, the American cause had weathered many storms and gained the crucial support of the French and Spanish. Leaving a garrison to hold Charleston, Cornwallis headed inland and won a series of battles so costly in casualties and irrelevant in strategic value that he was compelled to flee to Yorktown in hopes of resupply or evacuation. We know how that turned out.

It was 250 years ago this week, then, that Carolinians put an end to Britain’s first Southern Strategy, and with it the Crown’s best chance to win the war. The Continental Congress in Philadelphia was about to finalize the Declaration of Independence. Its relevance rested on a hard-fought battle nearly 700 miles away.

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).