Here we sit, on the eve of (or, more correctly, the day after) our nation's birthday. I've pointed out in years past that the whole "fourth of July" discrete date is nothing short of a myth. We celebrate a fiction. Our nation's birthday is a lie. One might almost call it "fake news."

The problem stems from how many actual steps it took for us to "declare independence." As I previously pointed out:

The timeline for declaring independence is a convoluted one. After the draft document was submitted, Congress tinkered with the wording for over a week. On July 2nd, they moved forward when twelve of the thirteen colonies voted to declare their independence from Great Britain (to accept the document, in essence). New York abstained, and it wasn't until July 19th that all thirteen approved independence. On July 4th, the document's final language was sent to the printers -- two days after the most meaningful vote had been taken on the independence question.

The story gets even more convoluted at this point. August 2nd is the date that most of the men actually signed the document -- although many of them would not do so until months afterwards (one, Thomas McKean of Delaware, wouldn't actually sign the document until 1777). In the spring of 1777, the official public record of Congress was released, and (lo and behold!) it stated that July 4th was the date that the "Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States" was signed in Congress. This was, to be blunt, a blatant lie. New York wouldn't even vote for independence for another two weeks, so it is impossible that any sort of "Unanimous Declaration" happened on July 4th. To further muddy the waters, in the official record, the entries for July 19th (when New York finally did agree) and August 2nd (when the physical document was actually endorsed by most of the signers) were omitted. It wasn't until 1821, when the Secret Journals of Congress were published, that these entries were restored. On July 19th, the entry specifies that a formal copy of the Declaration of Independence be printed up to be "signed by every member of Congress." This signing took place on August 2nd, according to the true record of what happened in Congress (instead of the made-up version they published in the spring of 1777).

We all think we know what happened 236 years ago. We all picture Trumbull's painting as the signing of the Declaration of Independence, even though (1) it does not actually depict this event, (2) some people were present at the signing who are not in the painting, (3) the signing took place a month later, (4) the 56 signers were never actually in the same room at the same time, (5) even if they had been, only 42 of them are actually depicted, and, most importantly (6) Congress voted for independence on July 2nd, not July 4th, and New York didn't give its assent until July 19th.

Now, historical accuracy is a wonderful thing, but it leaves the open question: when should we celebrate our independence? June 28th? July 2nd? July 19th? August 2nd? Whenever the last guy finally got around to signing the document?

So, obviously, we've been rewriting our own history from the very beginning. Which means that humorous attempts to do so are as American as apple pie. Today, Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, wrote an amusing version of the Declaration of Independence for the Washington Post. His version is of "Donald Trump reading the Declaration of Independence," and it begins:

Thank you very much for coming, including the members of the horrible Fake News Media, to this tradition that I have started, another beautiful first for this administration, the reading of the very famous and well-known Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest declarations in the history of the world. Here we go:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one group of people to dissolve the political bands -- really, bands? Is it "bands" or "bonds"? Who knows? -- which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and our God, too, our wonderful and very Christian God, entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. That was a long sentence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, so much happiness, such tremendous amounts of happiness, we are doing so well with the happiness, aren't we? -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, I, too, received the greatest consent of the governed, the most consent of any president in a long time, despite the unfair electoral college being rigged against a Republican.

There's a lot of stuff on "Prudence" here that I'm skipping because prudence is what got this country into trouble in the first place. We need to be bold!

As I said, this is amusing, but leaves too much of the original intact. For those who have forgotten, here is how the real McCoy starts:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The funniest rewrite of our foundational document, however, comes from H. L. Mencken, from 1921. He "translates" the Declaration into "American," or the vernacular of the day. Here's how his version begins:

When things get so balled up that the people of a country got to cut loose from some other country, and go it on their own hook, without asking no permission from nobody, excepting maybe God Almighty, then they ought to let everybody know why they done it, so that everybody can see they are not trying to put nothing over on nobody.

All we got to say on this proposition is this: first, me and you is as good as anybody else, and maybe a damn sight better; second, nobody ain't got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time whichever way he likes, so long as he don't interfere with nobody else. That any government that don't give a man them rights ain't worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter. That whenever any government don't do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum's rush and put in one that will take care of their interests.

Now, what I'd give money to see is Trump reading Mencken's version, because I really believe Trump would be much more comfortable with this language than the high-flown text of the original. But I do have to warn anyone who wants to read the full text of Mencken's version that this was intentionally-rough 1920s vernacular, so it contains casual terms which are highly racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise ethnically offensive. You have been warned. But for those with the stomach to plow through such language, it's still a pretty funny read.

Tomorrow, I'll be running a previous column with my own rewrite of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (because it sure beats writing a new column on a holiday), which is nothing short of what the Founders doubtlessly would have written, if they had had a lot more paper to work with. There's something to be said about freedom of the press when an extra page or so of pixels costs nothing, in other words.

In any case, I certainly hope everyone has a happy Independence Day tomorrow, no matter which version of history you care to believe in. The barbecue and fireworks wouldn't be any more nor less satisfying than if we had all agreed to celebrate yesterday, after all. So go out there and have a happy Fourth of July, everyone!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant