Have you read the constitution?

arbilad · Head Chef

Have you read the constitution?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Several times. Hey, I was a Political Science Major.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

{I have to admit, when I first read the poll, I was thinking of making a remark something like what John Adams says below... indicating that it was the favorite part of what I read... you know, kind of like when investigators tell missionaries what they've read... }

From the movie version of the musical 1776:

[as they stand on the sidewalk below Jefferson's apartment]
John Adams: This is positively indecent!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Oh, John, they're young and they're in love.
John Adams: Not them, Franklin. Us! Standing out here, waiting for them to... I mean, what will people think?
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Don't worry, John. The history books will clean it up.
John Adams: It doesn't matter. I won't be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them- Franklin, Washington, and the horse- conducted the entire revolution by themselves.
[pause]
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: I like it.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

P.S. I've read the Federalist Papers, too.

Pt314 · Senior Member

I have read the entire constitution several times through, along with reading books on it.
Although I have read books quoting from the Federalist Papers, I must admit I haven't read them all the way through.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Had to do it back in Poly Sci class. Pretty interesting. The instructor had us write out what the amendments meant and if it didn't follow the original amendment pretty closely he let you know. He didn't go for modern interpretations and such. Also got to see it a few years back on a trip to D.C.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yes, I've read the Constitution and the amendments. I've committed large sections to memory and hope to have the entire thing memorized before I die :) I have to admit that I find it amusing when someone says to me, "The Constitution says you can't have prayer in schools," or some other constitutional mandate. I usually smile and reply, "I'm pretty familiar with the Constitution. Remind me again which article that is."

I've also studied the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, Washington's inaugural and farewell addresses, the Monroe Doctrine, Lincoln's inaugural addresses, the Gettysburg Address, and the Emancipation Proclamation. American historical documents are kind-of a hobby, especially the rhetorical ones.

For some reason, every year our scout committee asks me to be the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge counselor again.

SMILE · Veteran Member

I have read the Declaration of Independence, The Constituiton, and The Bill of Rights all the way through. I have serched specific parts recently but haven't reread any of them begining to end for several years. With my memory that means I don't remember much past "We the people...".

noel · Veteran Member

Ditto Roper.

As an aside, would anyone here be interested in participating on threads discussing the Federalist Papers one number at a time?

I think the makings of a very interesting, and beneficial discourse is likely.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Oooh, Oooh! Me! Me!

Political geekery galore!

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm in, though I may not be able to participate much. I'm teaching and doing nine graduate credits this sememster. But if I can get my two teenage sons to also think about the issues, it will be worthwhile.

--roper

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

In an excerpt from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884) compiled by Edward S. Ellis, the famous American frontiersman, war hero, and congressman from Tennessee relates how he learned -- from one of his own backwoods constituents -- the vital importance of heeding the Constitution and the dangers of disregarding its restraints.

Following is a dialog between Crockett and a Tennessee farmer named Bunce, who scolded Crockett for supporting what he considered an unconstitutional use of federal funds.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest .... But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.'

"'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?'

"Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."

Was Bunce justified in his criticism of Crockett?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, it sounds as if he may be justified in leveling a complaint, but I don't think he is justified in being the subject matter expert on interpretation of what is considered a "liberty" in Congress doing it's job.

If one is going to state that unless it is explicity stated in verbage within the canon of the constitution, it can't be done, then we are denying the very real intent of the founding fathers for the consitution to be a "living" document that did not address every little thing, that was not written to be explicit in micro-managing everything, that was not able to be adapted as necessary for the different times and needs of the nation and its citizenry.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

He had every right to be critical, if he interpreted the Constitution in that way, and he had every right to express his displeasure, to vote against Crockett, and to try to persuade others to do so as well. As did every other constituent of every other congressman. If the citizens had acted in that way, then the political class would have learned that such a move would not be popular. However, that did not occur, so the majority of citizens must have had no complaint. So the will of the people was done, like it or not.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

It is my understanding of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress was given the power to do 20 specific things which are clearly spelled out, and welfare to individual persons or groups is not one of them.

According to the 10th Amendment, "All powers not specifically delegated to the Congress of the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited to the states by this Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people." My interpretation of that is that powers not delegated to Congress are prohibited to the Congress. I think Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and James Madison made this point in their writings, but apparently not forcefully enough. Alexander Hamilton initially concurred, but later, when he becamy Secretary of the Treasury, changed his tune and maintained that the "welfare clause" in the Preamble of the Constitution allows the FedGov to do anything it decides is for the welfare of any part of the country, even if it is not included in the enumerated powers, and even if it is to local or special welfare instead of the general welfare, and is used to justify the kind of welfare we have in America today. In 1936, Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, in the Butler Case, wrote the opinion that settled the issue in favour of Hamilton's "revised" concept of welfare. This opened the flood gates for FDR's New Deal and other welfare legislation, which I believe got us to where we are today.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

The interstate commerce clause has also been widely interpreted by the courts to allow the Federeal Government all kinds of powers and authority that it otherwise would not have had. This became very apparant during the civil rights movement. I recall one case in particular where a hotel refused to allow miniorities to stay. Minority patrons sued in federal court with the interstate commerce clause as their basis for applying federal law. The hotel argued that they were not subject to the Federal law because they were not engaged in interstate commerce and thus the federal government could not enforce the civil rights laws against them because it was not one of the powers specifically given to the federal government by the constitution. The federal courts held that the business did engage in interstate commerce because it's customers/guests were not all from within the state. In another discimination case a business was sued by the federal government and the courts determined that the federal law did apply because of the interstate commerce clause because the business purchased office supplies that did not originate in the state where the business was located. Thus under the interstate commerce clause the Federal government could intervene and enforce the discrimination laws against the business.

These court decisions and others have so broadened the definition of interstate commerce that the Federal Government has pretty much gained carte blanche to enforce all federal laws in the states even if those powers were not specifically granted to them by the constitution.

On one hand I'm glad that descrimination laws were enforced against these businesses but on the other I am not happy to see how the courts were able to expand the definition of interstate commerce thus granting the Federal government more authority.

arbilad · Head Chef

the very real intent of the founding fathers for the consitution to be a "living" document that did not address every little thing

Please provide a source for your assertion that the founders intended the constitution to be a living document. I've concluded no such thing from reading their writings. In fact, they provided a method for updating the Constitution as needed - they're called amendments.
A "living document" can be interpreted to mean whatever the heck you want it to mean, so it would be worse than useless as a Constitution. The Constitution exists to guarantee our rights. A bicameral legislature, three branches of government, etc. could have been organized without a founding document. The Founders wanted a form of government that would not infringe on the peoples' rights. Thus, they limited the power of government, and guaranteed certain rights. But a guarantee is no good if you can reinterpret it as you go. For instance, what if a judge decides that, in the modern world, the freedom of the press is no longer necessary?
In my opinion, the concept of a "living document" is fairly modern, and is very dangerous to our liberties.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I don't hold with the "living constitution" idea either, but I do want to point this out again:

"It is my understanding of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution..."

Exactly. It is your understanding. You are not the arbiter of these things. The Supreme Court has upheld a loose interpretation of the welfare and commerce provisions, and they are the ones who get to do that. Now, we can certainly work to get more strict-interpretationist judges onto the court--and that is one area where our old buddy George W. has performed quite well, if you ask me.

But I will say it again, the people have spoken, through their elected and appointed representatives, and they want some form of social welfare program. If you think it is bad for the Republic, you have to convince 51% of the people to agree with you.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Please provide a source for your assertion that the founders intended the constitution to be a living document.

I can not provide source material for the assertion, as I am not a poli-sci or constitutional scholar of any sort, nor do I imagine myself to be. I can give anecdotal evidence at best. For example, the issue of slavery. Slavery was not addressed in the constitution originally, was it? How about the fact that they set up a process for ammending the constitution? That kind of implies they had the wisdom to know that in the future there would be things they could not / would not have laid contingency for within the document. And, as Shiz brought up, ultimately, the will of the people has spoken in every instance of an ammendment being ratified or striken. And so long as the majority of the people will choose righteously, then there is not a great need for undue alarm.

In that respect, this is what I mean by living document. That it is not static, that it is adaptable. That it is meant to be used and maybe even get a little smudged or dirty, etc. and not locked away in a case for just viewing on special occasions. Activist judges and an unchecked judiciary are far more dangerous than executive orders and a congress whose main functioning seems to be political fighting for partisan power controls within the house and senate.

Oh, for the record, and I say this with perhaps only the most naive of conceptual understanding, but I consider myself to be a proponent of a strong federal weak state government model.

But, I think maybe this weekend I'll pull out a copy of the Constitution and the ammendments and read it if time permits.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I never encountered the expression "living document" as applied to the US Constitution until I heard Al Gore use it in response to criticism of the Clinton Administration's violations of the Constitution.

It'd be quite futile to try at this time to convince most Americans that social welfare is bad for the country. But I would like to convince more LDSs that we would do well to heed the warnings about social welfare programs given us by such Church leaders as President Grant, President Kimball, H. Verlan Andersen and Ezra Taft Benson. I've been 3 weeks now in Utah and I'm amazed at the socialist leanings of LDS voters, both professed Democrats and professed Republicans. Statements in opposition to social welfare by H. Verlan Andersen and Ezra Taft Benson are still available in their scripturally well documentd books. I don't see how anyone who reads them could then support social welfare, regardless of what Jefferson, Adams and Madison said.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

lundbaek, I thought you were from Utah... sorry, assumption on my part

What are you doing there? I don't mean to be crass or rude, and I hope you don't interpret this as either, but from your profile, you indicate you are serving a mission with your wife... wouldn't it be more in keeping with your mission call in serving The Lord to devote your energies to your call and less to the evaluation of members' politics and advising them on how they should be thinking politically?

I recall hearing the term "living document" over two decades ago in my high school American Government classes and (gasp) American Heritage class at BYU... long before the evil Algore was even a Senator. Of course, I think the concept's definition has been changed over the ensuing time, and hopefully I expressed sufficiently how I interpret the concept (which is not the same way as much of the liberal side of the aisle does). Simply, that there is a process in place (with checks and balances) for modification of the highest law of the land to address contemporary issues that were not even imaginable in the times of the founding fathers.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

My wife and I are working at the Family History Library. As was the case with our earlier leadership mission, we, like other couple missionaries, are entitled to engage in other activities and correspond with whomever we please. In the case of the family history mission, when we go "off shift" we are usually on our own time. There is a 60 mile radius limit on our travel, which gives us no problem. And we are expected to pursue some personal interests. The training phase that we are in is quite intense, and diversions are a great help. Small groups of couples and single sisters occasionally take in concerts and there is even a ride on the Heber Creeper in the planning.

I fully expected the resentment expressed here at some of my political views. There are plenty of people who are very much in agreement with me, and surely more who detest my views. I am among those who believe that people should support their government in its responsibility or proper role as expressed by Ezra Taft Benson in his speech "The Proper Role of Government. But I believe the government should not support the people. I consider it immoral to force any person to contribute to the welfare of another, whether it be at the muzzle of a gun or at the ballot box, which comes around to the same thing, ultimately. That amounts to deprivation of a certain amount of free agency as much as forcing a person to buy his/her own health insurance or to contribute toward that of another, as Governor Romney has apparently achieved in Massachusetts (where, incidentally, I lived for over 25 years).

About this time 40 years ago I first encountered many of the political views I now espouse. About 10 years ago I finally got it, when it got personal. And I had the advantage of personally hearing as well as reading the admonitions of apostles and prophets as far back as 1960. That we no longer hear such admonitions I attribute to conditions expressed in the parable of the rafters going over the waterfall, which I think I posted here someplace, and attribute to Whisper Fox over on the Zion's Camp forum. These are divisive issues, as evidenced by the responses some of you have made. If you think they are harsh, imagine how European LDSs, so accustomed to socialism and dictatorship as they are, take to them. Actually, a couple of times I broached the subject in a bishops and branch presidents' training meetings in Denmark, and was pleasantly surprised at the ones who concurred with me. My branch had people cheating the state welfare system, which is how the subject came up there. Anyway, these disagreements could tear the Church asunder.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

lundbaek wrote:

My wife and I are working at the Family History Library. As was the case with our earlier leadership mission, we, like other couple missionaries, are entitled to engage in other activities and correspond with whomever we please. In the case of the family history mission, when we go "off shift" we are usually on our own time. There is a 60 mile radius limit on our travel, which gives us no problem. And we are expected to pursue some personal interests. The training phase that we are in is quite intense, and diversions are a great help. Small groups of couples and single sisters occasionally take in concerts and there is even a ride on the Heber Creeper in the planning.

Okay, well I'm not familiar with the rules and responsibilities for couples on non-proselyting missions (or proselyting missions for that matter either... do couples even serve proselyting missions?).

lundbaek wrote:

I fully expected the resentment expressed here at some of my political views.

I consider it immoral to force any person to contribute to the welfare of another, whether it be at the muzzle of a gun or at the ballot box, which comes around to the same thing, ultimately. That amounts to deprivation of a certain amount of free agency...

Anyway, these disagreements could tear the Church asunder.

Just so we're clear, I do not resent you or the political views you express. I dislike the way they are dogmatically presented, and I probably do not agree with with a lot of the views, but I can understand and respect the passion behind them.

I served a mission in West Germany before The Wall came down, and interacted with members who still fondly remember then Elder Benson coming and taking the lead to re-organize the Church and take care of the members. And, I do understand how they thought they were so "democratic" when all around I was seeing "socialistic" attitudes towards everything. I often said to myself when people there would boast about how democratic they were that they didn't really understand it, because if they did, they wouldn't always be looking for the government to take care of everything for them. Two decades later, is it possible we as a nation have developed a greater affinity for that thought pattern they had then? Sure. I don't deny that. But, I feel there is a better way of dealing with it than sounding alarmist.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. If the law of the land is to pay taxes, and some of that revenue generated by the government is used to fund social welfare programs, then to be in compliance with our own core doctrinal beliefs, we exercise our agency to pay the taxes. We are not robbed of our agency simply because the government has programs we personally disagree with. Was it immoral for you to be "forced" to contribute to the welfare of your children? Didn't having children take away from your "free agency"? Agency is not and never has been free. We are agents unto ourselves, free to act, free to choose. But, we are not free from the consequences of those choices. We can choose to not pay our taxes, but we are not free from the spiritual or temporal outcome of not obeying the law of the land. If we do not agree with the law of the land, then we can choose to work within the body of law to change that law. We are not robbed of our agency if an election or ballet issue does not come out on the side we voted for. We still had the agency to vote as we chose, and we also have the agency to decide if we will abide the results of the vote or not.

I don't know that political disagreements could tear the Church asunder, since that would indicate He has but a tenuous amount of influence over His Church, and the prophecies indicate that the Church will not falter in the latter-days, but certainly we are cautioned against being extreme in all things, and disagreements do indeed tear individuals asunder from the Church. The adversary is working towards splitting nations up into tribes with the catalyst being group A has offended / usurped the rights of group B and therefore give us what is ours or else, in my opinion. Therefore it is important for us in the Church to not follow that same trend, and it all starts with political "debate" in my book. More unity is needed and less divisiveness.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

:WOOT: Cat! Well said!

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 10:16, 2006-09-26

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Hear Hear!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I just want to lend my support to Cat... though I didn't bother to read his post... it was long... and I'm just not feeling up to it. :) But you are the greatest, man. --Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

rayb wrote:

I just want to lend my support to Cat... though I didn't bother to read his post... it was long... and I'm just not feeling up to it. :) But you are the greatest, man. --Ray

That's alright... I wasn't really up to writing it either... so much work to do, so little time, so much distraction...

<Elvis voice> Thankya...thankyaverymuch! You've been a marvelous audience!</Elvis voice>

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

rayb wrote:

I just want to lend my support to Cat... though I didn't bother to read his post... it was long... and I'm just not feeling up to it. :) But you are the greatest, man. --Ray

Ray you are seriously too funny man.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Based on the premise that it is "immoral to force any person to contribute to the welfare of another, whether it be at the muzzle of a gun or at the ballot box, which comes around to the same thing, ultimately," I was curious how that reconciles with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which reads:

"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Seems to me that the Constitution explicitly states that Congress has the power to tax as well as the power to spend. Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that this spending power is broad, even to the point of encouraging certain activities by the states? Even to the point of encouraging or discouraging certain economic behavior? What exactly is the definition of "general Welfare of the United States" if it does not include provision to helping the citizenry when and where necessary? Who decides if something does or does not fit the "general Welfare of the United States?"

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

There is a great deal to argue about there. Remember the revolutionary war was specifically about taxes, and especially direct taxes. In fact the 16th amendment had to be passed in order for income to be "safely" and "legally" taxed.

General Welfare is not a term that is the same today that it held by the founding fathers of the constitution. The pre-amble itslef speaks to promoting the general welfare. Is "general welfare" applicable to states or persons? There is a definate difference in approach. Should environment of general welfare be established for the general populace in which the choice of success and failure is driven as a goal of the individual? Or should choice be limited to the general populace so the individual will be assured of a minimum well being, but never really know success.

I am no fan of Nietzche, but I think he said it best. Free men are not equal, and equal men are not free. What did the founding fathers intend when they wrote the constitution? What was the balance between freedom and welfare? And therein lies the meaning of General Welfare.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Is the existence of some kind of "safety net" for individuals a good thing for the "General" welfare? Would things like unemployment insurance and Medicaid not be a good way to help the poor and working classes, and thereby reduce civil disorder, crime, and disease?

I am all for keeping people from living off the government, and I hate the Great Society and its creation of a permanent dole-supported underclass. I don't like the Social Security system, as it is unfair. But I think it is a legitimate role of the government, that has been supported by the voters, to provide some forms of assistance. I don't think complete libertarian laissez-faire policies are the answer.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

There is a great deal to argue about there. Remember the revolutionary war was specifically about taxes, and especially direct taxes. In fact the 16th amendment had to be passed in order for income to be "safely" and "legally" taxed.

Where did you study history buddy. While it is true that the slogun "No Taxation without Representation" was used to rally people to the rebels cause, no such demand was ever made by emissarys to the British government. The leaders of the rebellion never made the demand because they feared the British might actually give them representation. As for the taxes themselves they were realistically a pittance compared with what those in England were required to pay. You would literally have had to drown yourself in gallons upon gallons of tea before paying a pence worth of taxes which by the way were leveled prior to the tea being sold to consumers. The stamp acts were no more punitive than any other fee charged by government today for any official document with the county or cities seal on it.

We have more to complain about today in the way of taxes, regulations, and fees than the early colonists ever did. By the rebels own estimates only 1/3 of the populace even supported them. So you have 33% of the populace supporting independence against England. Why was this 33% such a force?

Money. The leaders and trouble makers tended to be those with means, status, position, and authority. Most were self made men such as Franklin and Washington (married into wealth) but still, they had money and power. They viewed the British as standing in the way of them making more money.

One of the main causes of the revolution that is totally overlooked in history was the Ohio River Valley. Many colonists wanted to move into this area. It was rich in resources and land. One problem though. The indians did not want them there and the British government did not want to fight an expensive gorilla war with the tribes. They had taken over the French forts in the valley and used them to not keep the Indians away from the colonists but to keep the colonists out of the Ohio river valley even to the point of forced removal of colonists who violated the prohibition. This did not sit very well with people because they wanted to go there.

This was by far a much greater issue and cause of the revolution than a paltry tax.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

salesortonscom wrote:

...the British government did not want to fight an expensive gorilla war with the tribes. They had taken over the French forts in the valley and used them to not keep the Indians away from the colonists but to keep the colonists out of the Ohio river valley even to the point of forced removal of colonists who violated the prohibition.

Yeah, it was costing the British Crown a fortune to import the minimum number of gorillas from their native habitat in the African continent to garrison those forts and then to feed them... a little known fact is they were also using lemurs, chimpanzees, bonobos, and howler monkees to help offset the expense. They even toyed with the idea of orangatans, but the war broke out and the proposal got lost in the mountains of logistical paperwork.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

salesortonscom wrote:

...the British government did not want to fight an expensive gorilla war with the tribes. They had taken over the French forts in the valley and used them to not keep the Indians away from the colonists but to keep the colonists out of the Ohio river valley even to the point of forced removal of colonists who violated the prohibition.

Yeah, it was costing the British Crown a fortune to import the minimum number of gorillas from their native habitat in the African continent to garrison those forts and then to feed them... a little known fact is they were also using lemurs, chimpanzees, bonobos, and howler monkees to help offset the expense. They even toyed with the idea of orangatans, but the war broke out and the proposal got lost in the mountains of logistical paperwork.

In later years as the empire spread the British employed Emu, Kangaroos, and Tasmanian Devils at a significantly reduced rate due to a trade imballance with aboriginal natives of Australia. The Aboriginies were importing Englishmen at an alarming rate which caused the resulting trade imballance and lead to the term coined by Kipling known as "White Man's Burden". The Aboriginies found the white men burdensome and useless for most tasks but the entertainment value was so high that a craze ensued not unlike the crazes for Teddy Roxspin, Tickle Me Elmo, The Cabage Patch Kid, and the pet rock in the U.S.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

There is a great deal to argue about there. Remember the revolutionary war was specifically about taxes, and especially direct taxes. In fact the 16th amendment had to be passed in order for income to be "safely" and "legally" taxed.

Where did you study history buddy. While it is true that the slogun "No Taxation without Representation" was used to rally people to the rebels cause, no such demand was ever made by emissarys to the British government. The leaders of the rebellion never made the demand because they feared the British might actually give them representation. As for the taxes themselves they were realistically a pittance compared with what those in England were required to pay. You would literally have had to drown yourself in gallons upon gallons of tea before paying a pence worth of taxes which by the way were leveled prior to the tea being sold to consumers. The stamp acts were no more punitive than any other fee charged by government today for any official document with the county or cities seal on it.

We have more to complain about today in the way of taxes, regulations, and fees than the early colonists ever did. By the rebels own estimates only 1/3 of the populace even supported them. So you have 33% of the populace supporting independence against England. Why was this 33% such a force?

Money. The leaders and trouble makers tended to be those with means, status, position, and authority. Most were self made men such as Franklin and Washington (married into wealth) but still, they had money and power. They viewed the British as standing in the way of them making more money.

One of the main causes of the revolution that is totally overlooked in history was the Ohio River Valley. Many colonists wanted to move into this area. It was rich in resources and land. One problem though. The indians did not want them there and the British government did not want to fight an expensive gorilla war with the tribes. They had taken over the French forts in the valley and used them to not keep the Indians away from the colonists but to keep the colonists out of the Ohio river valley even to the point of forced removal of colonists who violated the prohibition. This did not sit very well with people because they wanted to go there.

This was by far a much greater issue and cause of the revolution than a paltry tax.

I now have a degree in history. So allow me to put forth the steps that led to the separation of the colonies from England.

Consider the French and Indian war, a major victory for the British (and the British colonies), which allowed Britain free movement in the northern Americas. It is true that the end of the war gave the Ohio Valley and Canada to the British. It is also true that the French and Indian war (known in Europe as the Seven Years War), started (technically) by George Washington, was so arduous and difficult that it bankrupt the British empire. So the British sought sucrease in two distinct methods. One was the Proclamation Act of 1763 which forbade colonization beyond the Appalachian Mountains (Daniel Boone in essence became a "coyote" smuggler to "Caintuk'). This did upset the colonists, but it was also in 1763. So we see the Proclamation Act was as controlling as you might think. Boonesborough was built during its enforcement. The Quebec Act of 1774 is the only act that even speaks to the issue, making Boonesborough and those who went ahead and traveled east, responsible to Canada and not the colonies).

Now lets compare it to all of the tax acts that came about in the ensuring years up to April 1775

This was "one" tension between the colonies and Britain, however it was just one. Consider the Sugar Act of 1764, one of the largest exports out of the New England area was rum, made from Molasses and sugar imported from the West Indies. Rum is still and export out of New England area today. But beyond that there was also a tax on coffee, wines, indigo and a doubling of the duty on foreign goods. The colonists were never big on Mercantilism, and usually Britain looked the other way where foriegn goods were concerned, but now Britian, due to its near bankruptcy needed to enforce the issue. This of course led to a boycott.

Then came the Stamp Act in 1765 which was the first direct tax on the colonies in 150 years. Sure it was used to pay for British soldiers in the colonies themselves, but the money was sent to England which broke the mental connection settlers made for their own safety. All papers of any legal stance were taxed, this pretty much meant all papers. So vociferous was the response that it was also later repealed, but then replaced with the "Declaratory Act of 1766" which specifically stated that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies any way they chose to.

Now if taxes were not the issue, why have a non active (ie it doesn't do anything but declare) declaratory act? Could it be because the tax issue was on the forefront? Note there was no additional declaratory act to further enforce the Proclamation Act of 1763 either.

Then we go to the Townsend Acts of 1767 which not only taxes luxury goods, but basic daily goods for the first time. Again boycotts came about and it was also repealed.

Only to be replaced by the Tea Act of 1773 (three years after the Boston Massacre which wasn't really a massacre either and frankly the soldiers - defended by John Adams - were right to fire upon the crazed crowd). This led to the Boston Tea Party, which led directly to the Coercive Acts of 1774. The free quartering of troops, closing the port (until the tea that was dumped was paid for by the sons of liberty themselves), the removal of courts from Boston to London, and the ending of the Mass Charter.

Again note that it was indeed revenue through taxes. This is later reiterated in the Declaration of Independence: included was the imposing of taxes without consent, cutting off trade (through high duties or taxes). John Hanprism the first and largest signer of the declaration of independence was rich due to smuggling of goods in order to avoid the duties or taxes.

Samuel Adams, James Otis, they were the original leaders of the revolution and they were radicals, Washington and Benajamin on the other hand came in after the fact. Washington by the way knew he would be broke soon if he continued following the British economic system of buying materials from estimated crops his lands would bring in. James Otis by the way had a huge impact on John Adams when he spoke against the writs if assistance in which spoke against this type of power, the open search warrant was one that allowed stronger enforcement of taxes. ( Writs of Assistance

So we see that taxes were indeed a key part of the problem. In fact they were the main issue that hit the colonists (those who supported the tax).

Your argument is that the colonists had no right to really complain. That the taxes in the colonies were much lower than in England. All of that is true. But that is not germain to the issue of taxes for the colony. The colonists were unreasonable in their demands (in many cases) regarding taxes, but that does not negate the taxes being the main issue.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I think that is a pretty fair synopsis of the story. Taxes were a big deal. Representation was a big deal. I think the real key is that America was ready to cut loose and be a free nation. The taxation issue was just the decisive and most visible symbol of the fact that they were being governed from an island far across the ocean, with an elite that looked down upon the American elites as a bunch of rustics.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

salesortonscom wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

There is a great deal to argue about there. Remember the revolutionary war was specifically about taxes, and especially direct taxes. In fact the 16th amendment had to be passed in order for income to be "safely" and "legally" taxed.

Where did you study history buddy. While it is true that the slogun "No Taxation without Representation" was used to rally people to the rebels cause, no such demand was ever made by emissarys to the British government. The leaders of the rebellion never made the demand because they feared the British might actually give them representation. As for the taxes themselves they were realistically a pittance compared with what those in England were required to pay. You would literally have had to drown yourself in gallons upon gallons of tea before paying a pence worth of taxes which by the way were leveled prior to the tea being sold to consumers. The stamp acts were no more punitive than any other fee charged by government today for any official document with the county or cities seal on it.

We have more to complain about today in the way of taxes, regulations, and fees than the early colonists ever did. By the rebels own estimates only 1/3 of the populace even supported them. So you have 33% of the populace supporting independence against England. Why was this 33% such a force?

Money. The leaders and trouble makers tended to be those with means, status, position, and authority. Most were self made men such as Franklin and Washington (married into wealth) but still, they had money and power. They viewed the British as standing in the way of them making more money.

One of the main causes of the revolution that is totally overlooked in history was the Ohio River Valley. Many colonists wanted to move into this area. It was rich in resources and land. One problem though. The indians did not want them there and the British government did not want to fight an expensive gorilla war with the tribes. They had taken over the French forts in the valley and used them to not keep the Indians away from the colonists but to keep the colonists out of the Ohio river valley even to the point of forced removal of colonists who violated the prohibition. This did not sit very well with people because they wanted to go there.

This was by far a much greater issue and cause of the revolution than a paltry tax.

I now have a degree in history. So allow me to put forth the steps that led to the separation of the colonies from England.

Consider the French and Indian war, a major victory for the British (and the British colonies), which allowed Britain free movement in the northern Americas. It is true that the end of the war gave the Ohio Valley and Canada to the British. It is also true that the French and Indian war (known in Europe as the Seven Years War), started (technically) by George Washington, was so arduous and difficult that it bankrupt the British empire. So the British sought sucrease in two distinct methods. One was the Proclamation Act of 1763 which forbade colonization beyond the Appalachian Mountains (Daniel Boone in essence became a "coyote" smuggler to "Caintuk'). This did upset the colonists, but it was also in 1763. So we see the Proclamation Act was as controlling as you might think. Boonesborough was built during its enforcement. The Quebec Act of 1774 is the only act that even speaks to the issue, making Boonesborough and those who went ahead and traveled east, responsible to Canada and not the colonies).

Now lets compare it to all of the tax acts that came about in the ensuring years up to April 1775

This was "one" tension between the colonies and Britain, however it was just one. Consider the Sugar Act of 1764, one of the largest exports out of the New England area was rum, made from Molasses and sugar imported from the West Indies. Rum is still and export out of New England area today. But beyond that there was also a tax on coffee, wines, indigo and a doubling of the duty on foreign goods. The colonists were never big on Mercantilism, and usually Britain looked the other way where foriegn goods were concerned, but now Britian, due to its near bankruptcy needed to enforce the issue. This of course led to a boycott.

Then came the Stamp Act in 1765 which was the first direct tax on the colonies in 150 years. Sure it was used to pay for British soldiers in the colonies themselves, but the money was sent to England which broke the mental connection settlers made for their own safety. All papers of any legal stance were taxed, this pretty much meant all papers. So vociferous was the response that it was also later repealed, but then replaced with the "Declaratory Act of 1766" which specifically stated that Parliament had the right to tax the colonies any way they chose to.

Now if taxes were not the issue, why have a non active (ie it doesn't do anything but declare) declaratory act? Could it be because the tax issue was on the forefront? Note there was no additional declaratory act to further enforce the Proclamation Act of 1763 either.

Then we go to the Townsend Acts of 1767 which not only taxes luxury goods, but basic daily goods for the first time. Again boycotts came about and it was also repealed.

Only to be replaced by the Tea Act of 1773 (three years after the Boston Massacre which wasn't really a massacre either and frankly the soldiers - defended by John Adams - were right to fire upon the crazed crowd). This led to the Boston Tea Party, which led directly to the Coercive Acts of 1774. The free quartering of troops, closing the port (until the tea that was dumped was paid for by the sons of liberty themselves), the removal of courts from Boston to London, and the ending of the Mass Charter.

Again note that it was indeed revenue through taxes. This is later reiterated in the Declaration of Independence: included was the imposing of taxes without consent, cutting off trade (through high duties or taxes). John Hanprism the first and largest signer of the declaration of independence was rich due to smuggling of goods in order to avoid the duties or taxes.

Samuel Adams, James Otis, they were the original leaders of the revolution and they were radicals, Washington and Benajamin on the other hand came in after the fact. Washington by the way knew he would be broke soon if he continued following the British economic system of buying materials from estimated crops his lands would bring in. James Otis by the way had a huge impact on John Adams when he spoke against the writs if assistance in which spoke against this type of power, the open search warrant was one that allowed stronger enforcement of taxes. ( Writs of Assistance

So we see that taxes were indeed a key part of the problem. In fact they were the main issue that hit the colonists (those who supported the tax).

Your argument is that the colonists had no right to really complain. That the taxes in the colonies were much lower than in England. All of that is true. But that is not germain to the issue of taxes for the colony. The colonists were unreasonable in their demands (in many cases) regarding taxes, but that does not negate the taxes being the main issue.

Alright smart guy, what percentage of the population were actually affected by any of the taxes imposed by the British? You list a lot there but how many of the average Joe Colonists actually felt any discomfort from those taxes? Why did most of the noise on taxes seem to come out of only a couple of the colonies? The majority of people in the colonies were unafected by the taxes but the New England colonies just happened to be the loudmouths in the bunch. It still begs the question though that if "Taxation without Representation" was such a big issue, why was no formal demand for representation made by the delegates sent to England prior to the outbreak of hostilities?

At least we can agree that the colonists were unreasonable in most of their demands. I often wonder what would have happened had the colonies lost their bid for independence.

Slavery would have ended earlier.

Native peoples would have been treated more kindly.

Napoleon's rape of Europe would not have happened.

The French Revolution (and it's bloodbath) would not have happened.

Playing devil's advocate here, what did the colonies gain and what did the British actually lose at the end of the day?

It is my contention that the British came out the real victor in the war. They maintained their trade with the colonies, weakened the French, got rid of the cost of protecting the colonies, learned valuable military tactics needed for use at a later date, and still controled the seas.

The colonies gained less freedom than they had before, more debts to pay, their own set of taxes, less freedom as states to make decisions than they had as colonies, and a currency that was completely worthless. Then they decided to build the capital city in a swamp.

I say that the British were the real winners in all of this.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Alright smart guy, what percentage of the population were actually affected by any of the taxes imposed by the British? You list a lot there but how many of the average Joe Colonists actually felt any discomfort from those taxes?

Irrelevant. It wasn't about reality it was about perception. The Boston Massacre isn't even East LA on a bad day, and yet Revere gladly put together a print that made it look awful. Again its perception. Otis/Adams et al were all about rabble rousing.

Politics in general is about perception, not reality.

At least we can agree that the colonists were unreasonable in most of their demands. I often wonder what would have happened had the colonies lost their bid for independence.

See Canada, India, Ireland, Australia. It would have been one of those scenarios.

-- Edited by Jeffery_LQ1W at 11:58, 2006-09-29

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Slavery would have ended earlier.

Native peoples would have been treated more kindly.

Napoleon's rape of Europe would not have happened.

The French Revolution (and it's bloodbath) would not have happened.

Playing devil's advocate here, what did the colonies gain and what did the British actually lose at the end of the day?

It is my contention that the British came out the real victor in the war. They maintained their trade with the colonies, weakened the French, got rid of the cost of protecting the colonies, learned valuable military tactics needed for use at a later date, and still controled the seas.

The colonies gained less freedom than they had before, more debts to pay, their own set of taxes, less freedom as states to make decisions than they had as colonies, and a currency that was completely worthless. Then they decided to build the capital city in a swamp.

I say that the British were the real winners in all of this.

Contrafactual history is always fun.

So lets look:

Slavery would have ended earlier.

Yes, I agree with that one.

Native peoples would have been treated more kindly.

Mixed and questionable. Various indian uprisings in Canada, not to mention the treatment of aborigines in Australia, and frankly as late as the 20th century Ghandi, I would say the odd massacre of Indians by British soldiers wasn't all that great either. Lets not forget how the Irish were treated during the great famine that ensued?

How about those Opium Wars?

Napoleon's rape of Europe would not have happened.

Quite the opposite might have happened. Napoleon was planning to use Louisiana as the breadbasket for his empire. He never would have sold it to the British (whereas the Americans who had been allies and defeated the British were more neutral). Napoleon would have been more apt to seek the defeat of Le'Overture in Haiti and then strengthened his position in the Americas, which would have delayed his attacks in Europe a year or two. Just enough for him to avoid one of the worst winters in Russia in over a century. He would have also been able to obtain greater economic strength from an established region with the delay. Remember he controlled Europe fairly quickly (Austerlitz) with Russia being his ultimate downfall in the first venture (Waterloo the second). I don't think the colonial independence would have stopped Napoleon.

In a different vein the War of 1812 which occurred at the same time, had little or no affect in the battle with Napoleon given that no troops were sent to Canada and troops were actually withdrawn from many areas. Englands stance and battles were mostly sea faring not land. And even on land with allies, it was a dicey thing.

The French Revolution (and it's bloodbath) would not have happened.

I disagree with this also. The French were, if anything, upset that the US revolution happened before theirs. I do not see a direct correlation or influcence. In fact Paine, who went to France was almost guillotined himself by the French revolutionaries. Something you don't usually do with influential people. French monarchial collapse was inevitable since ensuing French kings post the colonial war still ignored the well being of their people.

Playing devil's advocate here, what did the colonies gain and what did the British actually lose at the end of the day?

Independence, a break from mercantilism which allowed a stronger freedom economically than they would have had in France. The opportunity for manifest destiny (both a good and bad thing in US history), an immigrant driven nation (you don't see as much in Canada and Australia), the longest running and oldest surviving democracy in the world which was also a template for many other nations.

Enshrined rights such as freedom of the press (not enshrined in European constitutions, even today), assembly, etcetera...

We gained a great deal. Some of the underlying reasons my not have been the best, but the results were indeed spectacuar.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

Alright smart guy, what percentage of the population were actually affected by any of the taxes imposed by the British? You list a lot there but how many of the average Joe Colonists actually felt any discomfort from those taxes?

Irrelevant. It wasn't about reality it was about perception. The Boston Massacre isn't even East LA on a bad day, and yet Revere gladly put together a print that made it look awful. Again its perception. Otis/Adams et al were all about rabble rousing.

Politics in general is about perception, not reality.

At least we can agree that the colonists were unreasonable in most of their demands. I often wonder what would have happened had the colonies lost their bid for independence.

See Canada, India, Ireland, Australia. It would have been one of those scenarios.

Perceptions = Reality? Can our colored perceptions of the American Revolution or U.S. history become reallity? And does Iocane really come from Australia?

So realistically, there was no factual basis for the claims of the leaders of the revolution for why they needed to break with England. So our independence was based on hype and propoganda. Nice!

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

No, there were legitimate claims. In fact the colonists argued, most persuasively, that the English parliament ignored their own bill of rights when dealing with the colonies. The declaration of Independence makes a strong legal argument as to why the colonies sought independence.

Taxes or the perception of taxes was a driving force for the common colonial joe, it just wasn't the most salient.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts

John Hanprism, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

For additional information about the Declaration of Independence, see these sites:

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Poor King George. How he ever had time to do all that is beyond me.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

In all honesty he wasn't a bad king. Just a little weird.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

In all honesty he wasn't a bad king. Just a little weird.

Just a little weird...the poor man suffered from a terrible dissability. He wasn't crazy.

Actually, George was quite a good guy when he wasn't suffering from his illness (he wasn't actually mad). He was a good husband and father, probably better than most other monarchs the country ever had. He also enjoyed farming which makes him OK in my book. All in all, for a Hanovarian Interloper, he was a pretty good guy all round.

First it was the Saxons, then the Angles, and then the bloody Germans! No wonder the empire is no more!

On a serious note, as a fellow history nut. Have you ever happened to come across a book called, "The British Story of the Battle of Lexington and Concord on 19th April 1775" by Vincent JR Kehoe. Colonial Kehoe used a lot of first hand accounts by British observers of the start of the war that really paints a different picture of the events of the day. If this era insterest you any I also recommend getting a hold of a copy of Fredrick Mackenzie's diary and Sjt Lamb's diary for an interesting view of how a British officer and enlisted man saw the colonists and their grievances firsthand. Also interesting is A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution by Johann Conrad Dohla. I also enjoy Richard Ketchem's books on Bunker Hill and Saratoga. I consider these works the quintesential collection for serious American Rebellion nuts like myself.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 12:52, 2006-09-29

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

In all honesty he wasn't a bad king. Just a little weird.

Just a little weird...the poor man suffered from a terrible dissability. He wasn't crazy.

Actually, George was quite a good guy when he wasn't suffering from his illness (he wasn't actually mad). He was a good husband and father, probably better than most other monarchs the country ever had. He also enjoyed farming which makes him OK in my book. All in all, for a Hanovarian Interloper, he was a pretty good guy all round.

First it was the Saxons, then the Angles, and then the bloody Germans! No wonder the empire is no more!

On a serious note, as a fellow history nut. Have you ever happened to come across a book called, "The British Story of the Battle of Lexington and Concord on 19th April 1775" by Vincent JR Kehoe. Colonial Kehoe used a lot of first hand accounts by British observers of the start of the war that really paints a different picture of the events of the day. If this era insterest you any I also recommend getting a hold of a copy of Fredrick Mackenzie's diary and Sjt Lamb's diary for an interesting view of how a British officer and enlisted man saw the colonists and their grievances firsthand. Also interesting is A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution by Johann Conrad Dohla. I also enjoy Richard Ketchem's books on Bunker Hill and Saratoga. I consider these works the quintesential collection for serious American Rebellion nuts like myself.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 12:52, 2006-09-29

Yes, I like the book because it presents a different stance. In all honesty the Brits weren't asking for all that much. But the end results was a constitution (after the first failed dry run) that was very enduring.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

John Hanprism Tee hee. Silly filter.

Yes...I'm fully aware that I'm juvenile for coming away from a serious discussion with that impression.

I like the movie 1776. Does that redeem me at all?

arbilad · Head Chef

Euphrasie wrote:

John Hanprism Tee hee. Silly filter.

Yes...I'm fully aware that I'm juvenile for coming away from a serious discussion with that impression.

I like the movie 1776. Does that redeem me at all?

I think I've fixed that particular aspect of the filter now, so you should be able to write Hancock or Peacock.