U.s. Founding fathers

[steelish]

There is so much talk of Progressivism and Socialists chipping away at the U.S. foundation.

I am curious what everyone thinks of the Founding Fathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States) AND what you learned in school that differs from what you've now know to be true.

[VaAugusta]

Virginia REPRESENT

[MMI]

I suppose "everyone" includes British posters?

I recall learning that there was an uneasy peace between the English/British colonies and the French Nouvelle France, broken now and again by incursions into each others' territories, or into disputed areas by the French or British colonies.

The Battle of Jomonville Glen, which was started by a certain George Washington, was the trigger to the Seven Years War, a conflagration that spread around the whle world and found Britain fighting against Fance and its allies (incuding, at various times, Russia,Holland, Spain, Austria and a handful of German dukedoms and principalities).

Because the colonials refused to fight for themselves, Britain had to commit considerable forces to the North American theatre, in addition to those fighting elsewhere, and at no small cost. Consequently, it tried to raise taxes from the colonies to go towards defraying the cost of defending them ... bearing in mind their provocative acts that kicked everything off in the first place and their failure to put up any significant defence themselves. However, it has to be said that the methods used by the British were presumptious, arbitrary and heavy-handed, giving opportunity for the Republicans within the colonies to foment discontent.

Furthermore, Britain entered into treaties with the Indians agreeing that they would be allowed to retain certain lands in return for trade. Apparently, these treaties affected George Washington's personal ambitions to acquire more land and cost him a lot of money. This, coupled with the fact that his career prospects within the British Army were damaged because of Fort Necessity (following Jumonville) meant that his loyalty to the Crown was now in question.

The taxes demanded by Britain were seen as an attempt to usurp the authority of the colonial governments' right to raise taxes, and a boycott of British goods ensued. Eventually Britain had to recognise that the radical colonies would always do as they wished and gradually removed nearly all of the direct taxes it had imposed. Tea, alone, was still taxed directly.

However, this was a symbol of British power and authority and so tea remained boycotted by the radicals/republicans. The boycott was threatened by the fact that, eventually, Britain reduced the tax on tea, and. to prevent cheap tea being bought by the colonials, a group of republicans destroyed a cargo being landed in Boston: the Boston Tea Party.

This brings us to John Hancock, a wealthy merchant and smuggler whose name is associated with the Boston Tea Party because of his speech inciting such action on the day before it took place.

Another "Father" was Tom Paine, a malcontent, privateer (licenced pirate), professional revolutionary, and "political quack", who was fired from his job for lying, and who could not even run a tobacco shop. After leaving England to join the French Revolution, he went to America to stir up trouble for his Motherland by declaring that the differences between Britain and the colonies were irreconcilable.

Thomas Jefferson is a hard man to criticise because he was an enlightnened man and a profound thinker and philosopher, and his republicanism is not to be held against him, neither is his hostility to British imperialism per se.

Until you consider the Louisiana Purchase, where he doubled the size of the Union and brought about conflict with Spain in one unconstitutional and imperialist act. As a Francophile, he sowed the seed of the 1812 War by trading with France and supporting its wars against Britain, and by allowing British deserters from the Royal Navy to claim US nationality, and then to object when the RN boarded American ships to recapture those deserters, now serving on those ships instead.

He also advocated the abolition of slavery, although he owned several himself, and he advocated and instigagted the removal of Indians "beyond our reach" or for their "elimination" where they were found to have assisted Britain during the War.

He was an opponent of women in politics - something which neither he nor the nation was ready for.

OK this is an intentional demolition job: I've avoided the good things I've seen, because I enjoy being provocative, and because I do believe that none of the Founding Fathers is really the hero he has been made out to be. I'm no historian, so maybe you can rebut everything I've said about Washington, Hancock, Paine and Jefferson, and maybe there are better men than these, whom I have not even mentioned; but maybe also, they conspired together to carry out actions that furthered their own personal interests as much as, if not more than, those of their fellow republicans, and certainly to the disadvantage of their Loyalist compatriots. Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

[Thorne]

I suppose "everyone" includes British posters?
This is a wonderful post, my friend! Great job.
It's amazing how the same points of history, looked upon from two different points of view, can appear so radically different. I seriously doubt that anything you've said can be considered false. It's only in the interpretation of events and personalities that any arguments might ensue.


OK this is an intentional demolition job: I've avoided the good things I've seen, because I enjoy being provocative,
Not you, surely!


and because I do believe that none of the Founding Fathers is really the hero he has been made out to be.
I have to agree. One thing that history shows us beyond any doubt is that heroes are not always on the right side, and that much of the time any righteousness they have is self-righteousness. Then too, villains are seldom as bad as they are portrayed. In fact, it can be very difficult to tell which is which, depending upon which side you are viewing them.


Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).
A truth all of us would be well advised to understand, and remember.

Thanks again for a great post.

[Thorne]

^
That ought to really frost his balls. I'm sure he expected me to return fire in spades.

Sorry, MMI. You enjoy being provocative, I enjoy being contrary. ;)

[steelish]

What's the main things I remember learning as a kid in school?


George Washington was our first President.

George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed to it, "I cannot tell a lie"

Washington crossed the Delaware, leading the troops in battle.

Washington helped defeat Great Britain.


What do I now know about Washington?

George Washington was called the indispensable man. I didn't really know why he was called the indispensable man until I read "The Real George Washington", a book based upon letters and papers he had written throughout his life.

Sorry, I like George Washington an awful lot. He's the kind of guy we need to have around now. This is what we need; a guy who is just honest and doesn't want to serve. How many current politicians do you think fit that bill?

People who say, all the time, "Well, I want to be president." You do? Why exactly? I can't imagine a worse job. I can't imagine, especially now, the next guy who serves, even this president, what's left of our country? How do you knit this all back together?

It wasn't much different back when George Washington was around. Things were a mess. And he was the indispensable man because nobody trusted anybody. All the states were arguing with each other. You couldn't sell anything across the border. The whole thing was falling apart.

Here is George Washington, a man who at 16 was out surveying land for his country, which was then Great Britain. All he wanted to do was go to Mount Vernon and be a farmer. His countries, Britain and then the United States of America, had him serving for year after year after year after year.

After he won the Revolutionary War, he went back to be that farmer in Mount Vernon. And things started to fall apart. They came knocking at his door and said, George, we need you, because the whole thing is falling apart. His response was, "Have I not yet done enough for my country?" Their answer was a resounding "No".

He went back and he didn't say very much during the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. He didn't say much. He didn't have to.

He was a revered figure. A farmer came into the field one day, and heard some noise and saw George Washington standing there, in the field and he just watched him as he got down in Valley Forge on one knee and he prayed all by himself.

He's a guy that in the end could have been made king. He could have been made a ruler. He's a guy who could have been really upset at Congress.

Valley Forge: when you think of Valley Forge and how they were cold and didn't have shoes. They didn't have pants. And it was year after year after year. And yet, Congress just wouldn't help our troops. And he stuck with them. In the end, they weren't going to pay the troops.

In the most telling moment of George Washington's power; the soldiers were going to a revolt. They had just won against the most powerful army on the planet, Great Britain. And then they found out the United States of America, (what a surprise), weasely Congress wasn't going to take care of the troops, wasn't going to pay them. Well, they went nuts. They went nuts. They said, "You're not going to pay us? We've just defeated Great Britain! You think we're afraid of you?"

They made a plan and they knew Washington wouldn't go it with. They made a plan to go and kill everybody in Congress. Washington heard about it. He said let's not replace one tyrant with another, but they didn't listen to him. They had a secret meeting. He wasn't invited to it.

He knew what was going on. He went to Congress and he got a letter from a member of Congress that said, OK, guys. I'll do my best. Please, give me more time. I'll do my best.

He found out about this meeting and he walked in, in the middle of it. All heads turned and it became silent. They didn't know what to say. He said — again, paraphrasing — "Gentlemen, I know what you're doing. Don't do it. Don't do it. We didn't work this hard." He said, "I have a letter in my pocket," and he reached into his pocket. And he opened up the letter and he was going to read it. But he needed his glasses.

This is a guy who used to sit on top of a white horse in the middle of a battle and he never got shot. (Can we say major target?) They thought this guy was god. And when he put his glasses on, he said, "I am sorry. But I have grown old and gray in the service of my country."

Nobody had ever seen him with his glasses on. It seems like such a silly story, but it goes to the power of George Washington. He took his glasses off, folded the paper up. Never read it and walked out.

They decided not to storm Congress. But they were mad at George Washington. In the end, a lot of his troops weren't real happy with him, didn't want to stand with him.

I think what we should admire about George Washington is most of the choices he made, he didn't want to make. Most of the things he did, he didn't want to do. He was revered for it. He was revered.

And I think it's because they knew that in the end, he didn't matter to him. It was just doing the right thing. That's what mattered.

(And this is just one of many stories within the book)

[MMI]

Thanks again for a great post.

I need to lie down ... I feel a little giddy.

[Thorne]

I need to lie down ... I feel a little giddy.

LOL! Up the rebels!

[TantricSoul]

Nice posts all ... a very fun thread to read and educational as well. ;) thanks so much!

[tedteague]

Well, by and large, the colonists really didnt have any real reason to revolt, and then they bickered for a few decades using big fancy words and writing in caligraphy. and you cant summarize the founding fathers uner the blanket phrase "founding father" hamilton and jefferson are polar opposites

[steelish]

Well, by and large, the colonists really didnt have any real reason to revolt

Really???

PRE-REVOLUTION CAUSES:


SEDITION ACT is a common law offense that is less than treason but that may be preliminary to it. The new law said that citizens could be fined or jailed if they criticized elected officials.


QUEBEC ACT set up a government for Canada and protected the rights of French Catholics.

Act of the British Parliament that vested the government of Quebec in a governor and council and preserved the French Civil Code and the Roman Catholic Church. The act was an attempt to deal with major questions that had arisen during the attempt to make the French colony of Canada a province of the British Empire in North America. Among these were whether an assembly should be summoned, when nearly all the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, being Roman Catholics, would, because of the Test Acts, be ineligible to be representatives; whether the practice of the Roman Catholic religion should be allowed to continue, and on what conditions; and whether French or English law was to be used in the courts of justice.

The act, declaring it inexpedient to call an assembly, put the power to legislate in the hands of the governor and his council. The practice of the Roman Catholic religion was allowed, and the church was authorized to continue to and oath of allegiance substituted so as to allow Roman Catholics to hold office. French civil law continued, but the criminal law was to be English. Because of these provisions the act has been called a generous and statesmanlike attempt to deal with the peculiar conditions of the province.

At the last moment additions were made to the bill by which the boundaries given the province by the Proclamation of 1763 were extended. This was done because no satisfactory means had been found to regulate Indian affairs and to govern the French settlers on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. It was decided, therefore, put the territory between the Ohio and the Mississippi under the governor of Quebec, and the boundaries of Quebec were extended southward to the junction of the Ohio and the Mississippi and northward to the height of land between the Great Lakes and the Hudson Bay.

This provision of the act, together with the recognition of the Roman Catholic religion, was seen to threaten the unity and security of British America by, in effect, reviving the old French Empire destroyed in 1763. The American colonists viewed the act as a measure of coercion. The act was thus a major cause of the American Revolution and provoked an invasion of Quebec by the armies of the revolting colonies in the winter of 1775-76. Its provisions., on the other hand, did little at the time to win French support of British rule in Quebec; and, expected for the clergy and seigneurs, most of the French remained neutral. The act eventually became important to French Canadians as the basis of their religious and legal rights.


TEA ACT the act did away with some taxes paid by the company.

In British colonial history, legislative maneuver by the British ministry of Lord to make English tea marketable in America. A previous crisis had been averted in 1770 when all the Townshend Acts duties had been lifted except that on tea, which had been mainly supplied to the Colonies since then by Dutch smugglers. In an effort to help the financially troubled British East India Company sell 17,000,000 pounds of tea stored in England, the Tea Act rearranged excise regulations so that the company could pay the Townshend duty and still undersell its competitors. At the same time, the North administration hoped to reassert Parliament's right to levy direct revenue taxes on the Colonies. The shipments became a symbol of taxation tyranny to the colonists, reopening the door to unknown future tax abuses. Colonial resistance culminated in Boston Tea Party (December 1773), in which was dumped into the ocean, and in a similar action in New York (April 1774).


QUARTERING ACT under the law, colonists had to provide housing, candles, bedding, and beverages to British soldiers stationed in the colonies.

In American colonial history, the British parliament provision (actually an amendment to the annual Mutiny Act) requiring colonial authorities to provide food, drink, quarters, fuel, and transportation to British forces stationed in their towns or villages. This act was passed primarily in response to greatly increased empire defense costs in America following the French and Indian War and Pontiac's War. Like the Stamp act of the same year, it also was an assertion of British authority over the colonies, in disregard of the fact that troop financing had been exercised for 150 years by representative provincial assemblies rather than by the Parliament in London. The act was particularly resented in New York, where the largest number of reserves were quartered, and outward defiance led directly to the Suspending Act as part of the Townshend legislation of 1767. After considerable tumult, the Quartering Act was allowed to expire in 1770. An additional quartering stipulation was included in the Intolerable Acts of 1774.


TOWNSHEND ACT taxes goods such as glass, paper, silk, lead, and tea. Also set up new ways to collect taxes.

In U.S. colonial history, series of four acts passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to assert what it considered to be its historic right of colonial authority through suspension of a recalcitrant representative assemble and through strict collection provisions of additional revenue duties. The British-American colonists named them after Charles Townshend show sponsored them.

The Suspending Act prohibited the New York Assembly form conducting any further business until it complied with the financial requirements of the Quartering Act (1765) for the expenses of British troops stationed there. The second act often called the Townshend duties, imposed for the second time in history direct revenue duties, payable at colonial ports, on lead, glass, paper, and tea. The third act established strict and often arbitrary machinery of customs collection in the American Colonies, including additional officers, searchers, spies, coast guard vessels, search warrants, writs of assistance, and Board of Customs Commissioners at Boston, all to be financed out of customs revenues. The fourth Towndhend Act lifted commercial duties on tea, allowing it to be exported to the Colonies free of all British taxes.

The acts posed an immediate threat to established traditions of colonial self-government, especially the practice of taxation through representative provincial assemblies. They were resisted everywhere with verbal agitation and physical violence, deliberate evasion of duties renewed nonimportation agreements among merchants, and overt acts of hostility toward British enforcement agents, especially in Boston. Such colonial tumult, coupled with the instability of frequently changing British ministries, resulted, on March 5, 1770 (the same day as the Boston Massacre), in repeal of all revenue duties except that on tea, lifting of the Quartering Act requirements, and removal of troops from Boston, which thus temporarily averted hostilities.


SUGAR ACT replaced an earlier tax on molasses that had been in effect for years.

In U.S. colonial history, British legislation aimed at ending the smuggling trade in sugar and molasses from the French and Dutch West Indies and at providing increased revenues to fund enlarged British Empire responsibilities following the French and Indian War. Actually a reinvigoration of the largely ineffective Molasses Act of 1733, the Sugar Act provided for strong customs enforcement of the duties levied on refined sugar and molasses imported into the colonies from non-British sources in the Caribbean. The Act thus granted a virtual monopoly of the American market to British West Indies sugar Planters. Early colonial protests at these duties were ended when the tax was lowered two years later. The Protected price of British sugar actually benefited New England distillers, though they did not appreciate it. More objectionable to the colonist were the stricter bonding regulations for shipmasters, whose cargoes were subject to seizure and confiscation by British customs commissioners and who were placed under the authority of the Vice-Admiralty Court in distant Nova Scotia if they violated the trade rules or failed to pay duties. As a result of this act, the earlier clandestine trade in foreign sugar, and thus much colonial maritime commerce, were severely hampered.


STAMP ACT this law put a tax on legal documents such as wills, diplomas, and marriage papers.

In U.S. colonial history, the British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation of all colonial commercial and legal papers, and newspapers, pamphlets, cards, almanacs, and dice. The devastating effect of Pontiac's War (1763-64) an colonial frontier settlements added to the enormous new defense burdens resulting from Great Britain's victory (1763) in the French and Indian War. The British chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grenville, hoped to meet at least half of these costs by the combined revenues of the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act, a common revenue device in England. Completely unexpected was the avalanche of protest form the colonists, who effectively nullified the Stamp Act by outright refusal to use the stamps as well as by riots, stamp burning, and intimidation of colonial stamp distributors. Colonists passionately upheld their rights as Englishmen to taxed only by their own consent through their own representative assemblies, as had been the practice for a century and a half. In addition to nonimportation agreements among colonial merchants, the Stamp Act Congress was convened in New York (October 1765) by moderate representative of nine colonies to frame resolution of "rights and grievances" and to petition the king and Parliament for repeal of the objectionable measures. Bowing chiefly to pressure (in the form of a flood of petitions of repeal) from British merchants and manufacturers whose colonial exports had been curtailed, Parliament, largely against the wishes of the House of Lords, repealed the act in early 1766. Simultaneously, however, Parliament issued the Declaratory Act, which reasserted its right of direct taxation anywhere within the empire, "in all cases whatsoever." The Protest throughout the Colonies against the Stamp Act contributed much to the spirit and organization of unity that was a necessary prelude to the struggle for independence a decade later.


INTOLERABLE ACT laws passed by Parliament in 1774 to punish colonists in Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party.

In U.S. colonial history, collective name of four punitive measures enacted by the British Parliament in retaliation for acts of colonial defiance, together with the Quebec Act establishing a new administration for the territory ceded to Britain after the French and Indian War (1754-63).

Angered by the Boston Tea Party (1773), the British government passed the Boston Port Bill, closing that city's harbour until restitution was made for the destroyed tea. Second, the Massachusetts Government Act abrogated the colony's charter of 1691, reducing it to the level of a crown colony, substituting a military government under Gen. Thomas Gage, and forbidding town meetings with out approval.

The third, the Administration of Justice Act, was aimed at protecting British officials charged with capital offenses during law enforcement by allowing them to go to England or another colony for trial. The fourth Coercive Act included new arrangements for housing British troops in occupied American dwellings, thus reviving the indignation that surrounded the earlier Quartering Act, which had been allowed to expire in 1770.

The Quebec Act, under consideration since 1773, removed all the territory and fur trade between the Ohio and Mississippi from possible colonial jurisdiction and awarded it to the province of Quebec. By establishing French civil law and the Roman Catholic religion in the coveted area, the act raised the spectre of popery before the mainly Protestant colonies.

The Intolerable Acts represented an attempt to reimpose strict British control, but after 10 years of vacillation, the decision to be firm had come too late. Rather than cowing Massachusetts and separating it from the other colonies, the oppressive measures became the justification for convening the First Continental Congress later in that same year of 1774.



The Boston Tea Party
The Boston Tea Party was a raid by American colonists on British ships in Boston Harbor. It took place on December 16, 1773. A group of citizens disguised as Indians, armed with tomahawks threw the contents of 342 chests of tea into the bay. This incident was one of many which stirred up bad feelings between the colonists and the British Government and soon led to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. The raid of American colonists that attacked the ships all began when the people of Massachusetts were angry over a tax which had been placed by the British Parliament on tea coming into the colonies. Though some time ships came into the harbor loaded with highly taxed tea. Because ships carrying cargoes of tea arrived in Boston Harbor continuously, the colonists called town meetings and came up with resolutions to stop the importation. The resolutions urged Governor Thomas Hutchinson to send back the ships and his refusal led to the Boston Tea Party.


Boston Massacre(By Paul Garcia)
The Boston massacre was no massacre at all, but a Boston mob and a squad of British soldiers. The riot took place on March 5, 1770.
It was called a "massacre" because several colonists were killed and several others were wounded. Here is the story as Paul Revere tells it. "Twenty-one days before, on the night of March 5,1770, five men had been shot to death in Boston by British soldiers participating in the event known as the Boston Massacre. A mob of men and boys taunted a sentry guard standing outside of the city's costume house.When other British soldiers came to the sentry's support, a free for all ensued and shots were fired into the crowd. Four died on the spot and a fifth died 4 days later. Capt. Preston and six of his men were arrested for murder, but later were acquitted through the efforts of attorneys Robert Auchmuty, John Adams, and Josiah Quincy who took their defense to ensure a fair trial. Later two other soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter." This was one of the reasons we had the American Revolution.


Common Sense
Common Sense was written by Thomas Paine and published in January of 1776. This document was one of many revolutionary pamphlets that was famous during that time. It advocated complete independence of Britain and it followed the natural rights philosophy of John Locke, justifying independence as the will of the people and revolution as a device for bring happiness. These words inspired the colonists and prepared them for the Declaration of Independence, although the thoughts were not original.

Benjamin Rush, the Philadelphia physician, encourage Paine, while Paine was writing the pamphlet. Rush read the manuscript, secured the criticism of Benjamin Franklin, suggested the Title, and arranged for its anonymous publication by Robert Bell of Philadelphia. Common Sense was an immediate success. Paine estimated that not less than one hundred thousand copies were run off, and he bragged that the pamphlet's popularity was beyond anything since the invention of printing. Everywhere it aroused discussion about monarchy, the origin of government, English constitution ideas, and independence.

Common Sense traces the origin of government to a human desire to restrain lawlessness. But government at its best is, like dress, "the badge of lost innocence." It can be diverted to corrupt purposes by the people who created it. Therefore, the simpler the government, the easier it is for the people to discover its weakness and make the necessary adjustments. In Britain "it is wholly owing to the people, and not to the constitution of the government, that the crown is not as oppressive as in Turkey. The monarchy, Paine asserted, had corrupted virtue, impoverished the nation, weakened the voice of Parliament, and poisoned people's minds. The royal brute of Britain had usurped the rightful place of law.

Paine argued that the political connection with England was both unnatural and harmful to Americans. Reconciliation would cause "more calamities" than it would bring benefits. The welfare of America, as well as its destiny, in Paine's view, demanded steps toward immediate independence.



OLIVE BRANCH PETITION
The Olive Branch Petition was a document that declared the colonists' loyalty to the Britsh king. This document was one of the last atempts to make peace prior to the revolution. The petition also states that the colonists wanted the Intorable Acts repeled. King George III rejected the petition and the colonists had no other choice but to revolt.

[leo9]

Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

One of my first lessons in scepticism.

My mother spent WW2 at college in America, so when my history class got around to the American Revolution, she helpfully lent me her old textbooks. Reading them side by side with the school's British texts was illuminating... an unexpected lesson in how the same facts can be given completely opposite spins.

[Thorne]

One of my first lessons in scepticism.

I learned the same lesson, a long time ago. Back in the dark ages, before the Internet, I had a history teacher assign a lesson for our study of the American Revolution. Our public library had copies of both the Encyclopedia Americana and the Encyclopedia Britannica. We had to use both sources for a short paper about, I think, the Boston Tea Party. Turns out the lesson was more about being aware of your sources than the Revolution.

[steelish]

That's why I do not rely on textbooks for answers. I research. I look for articles containing words from our founding fathers. I go to the library and look up copies of original documents written by them.

[tedteague]

Yea, thats a good argument, but its incredibly biased, obviously.

On Taxes:
All thos taxes you list, those arent a reason to revolt. Because, and I'm being completely serious here, they were repealed when the colonists threw a fit. I'm not even joking. Stamp Act, Suagr Tax, Townshend Act, all of it (except tea, but we'll get to that later), were repealed. As in dont have to be paid. Because the colonists didnt like it. Thats a sweet deal when you can get out of taxes by not liking them.
The Tea Tax - ah the big one. First, to preface my statement, GB gave one company a monopoly. Only the (I think East) India Trading Compnay could sell tea and it would be taxed. Remember, one comodity because we complained. Thats it. Anyway, the colonists said "No, I want my own smuggled tea"
And they did just that . . . despite the smuggled tea was inferior to the standard tea . . . and it was less expensive, after taxes. So the colonists wanted more expensive shitty tea. Yeah, these guys arent caught up in the moment at all.
Now all these taxes come from one main source. There was this party in the woods called the French-Indian War. To anyone who doesnt know, the colonists sort of wandered off into clearly marked French trading routes and yelled "surprise" with some guns, then when the Native Americans yelled "bon jour" with their tomohawks, they cried until GB got involved. But a big ass war across the world costs money. So, to fund the war the colonists started that was fought by the Brits, they decided to tax them.

On the Sedition Act - it never became anything more than an empty threat.

The Qaurtering Act- supplying the troops WE begged for is expensive, so we should pay them for doing it. this is only fair.

Intolerable Act- makes sense really. If you dump something that logically is a good thing into the water, you should only pay it back. And if we're all in a huff because the Brits didnt let us assemble (cause the last time we did, we acted so maturely), thats what happens when you do terrorist things. LA riots anybody? National Guard showed up and put everyone in time out.

So lets review:
1. The Sugar Act, Townshend Act, and Stamp Act dont matter. at all. Because they were repealed when we bitched enough. if anything, they help the case that the colonists were kind of overreacting.
2. Tea Tax - they made us buy good tea and an affordable price to fund the war we started. The nerve of them.
3.Quartering Act - if we're going to say we're afraid of the French and Indians, and refuse to pay any taxes whatsoever, this also makes sense
4. Intolerable Act - a rational reaction to a completely irrational occurence.

So . . . the colonists are ruled by this guy, who really doesn't do anything, lets them get away with whatever they want (there was NEVER a serious threat to the smugglers) and will protect us when we fuck up . . . NO, WE DONT WANT LIFE TO BE THAT EASY! FUCK YOU BRITAIN!

[denuseri]

Thats awfully funny, sounded like ole King George himself throwing a fit.

Thing is I seem to recall reading that the Colonists responded as civily as possible under the circumstances and very clearly layed out why they were leaving the Crown.

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 to 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 shown 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 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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration 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 legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to 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 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 offenses:



For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in 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, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete 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 endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is 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 attention 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.

[tedteague]

Well of course they feel that way, hence they revolted. But the truth of the matter is that you could get away with way more shit THEN than we can do NOW. by a lot. i mean, the taxes were repealed because we didnt want them, thats absurd

[MMI]

I have tried to find the text of the Rhodesian Proclamation declaring indepeendence in 1965, but I cannot. I refer you to this image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rho-udi.jpg instead, which if you copy and enlarge will demonstrate that the renegade colony of Rhodesia claimed the same kind of justification for its illegal acts that the 13 colonies asserted for their own treachery almost 200 years earlier. It is, in fact, known that Rhodesia found the US Declaration of Independence to be the best model for its own intentions and therefore chose to model its Proclamation on that document.

But it is not only Britain that has been accused of such heinous misrule of wholly virtuous men, but the United States has itself, and by its own citizens, too. Senator John Townsend said that, "our enemies [the Abolitionists] are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery." This marked the first steps to the seccesion from the Union by the Confederate States, leading to the American Civil War. You might like to look at the Georgian Seccession document, for example.

The point I am making is that you can dress up any act - good or evil - so that it will appeal to the uncritical mind and will in some cases lead them to lay down their lives for an unjust cause, beliving they are acting entirely honourably.

[denuseri]

Except the only thing is...our cuase was both "just" and "honorable" in both the revolutionary and the civil war victories.

[Thorne]

Except the only thing is...our cuase was both "just" and "honorable" in both the revolutionary and the civil war victories.

Only to 'our' side, and only because 'we' won. Had things gone differently, our cause would have been in the wrong as far as history was concerned.

As can be seen by our British cousins here, justice and honor are in the eyes of the beholder.

[tedteague]

Only to 'our' side, and only because 'we' won. Had things gone differently, our cause would have been in the wrong as far as history was concerned.

As can be seen by our British cousins here, justice and honor are in the eyes of the beholder.

Exactly, justice and honor are completely subjective phrases, and two people can view totally opposite acts as honorable or just. That'sa slippery slope.To many, the Union in the Civil War was very unjust and dishonorable because its a massive case of government forcibly siezing property. Now I'm not going to get into the ethics of the civil war because thats way too messy, but the point I'm trying to make is that from an OBJECTIVE viewpoint, the colonists were douchebags

[denuseri]

Thats not a very objective statement to say the least ted...smh.

So breaking away from tyranny and puting an end to slavery were not good things?

[tedteague]

Thats not a very objective statement to say the least ted...smh.

So breaking away from tyranny and puting an end to slavery were not good things?

Well, in the case of revolutionary war, its pretty clear that tyranny is not an accurate word to describe the British. Maybe "good intentioned" works better

In the Civil War, putting an end to slavery was a very good thing . . . but thats assuming that was the reason the war was fought in the first place

[Thorne]

Well, in the case of revolutionary war, its pretty clear that tyranny is not an accurate word to describe the British. Maybe "good intentioned" works better
No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


In the Civil War, putting an end to slavery was a very good thing . . . but thats assuming that was the reason the war was fought in the first place
Slavery was one aspect of the Civil War, among the least important at the time. Slavery was a doomed institution anyway, a last gasp of agrarianism which would have ended with the rise of industrialism. Tractors and cotton gins would have made slavery too expensive to continue, and world opinion would have been the final straw. It might even be argued that forcibly freeing the slaves did more damage to the eventual civil rights movement than if they had been freed voluntarily. The race-hatred and resentment of the slave states might not have become so ingrained into society.

[tedteague]

[QUOTE=Thorne;877160]No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


I'm sorry, but I don't see how the British were tyranical at all. They didn't enforce the few laws they never repealled

[denuseri]

Slavery and weather or not states would be admitted as slave or free was perhaps the single defining issue of the 20 years leading up to and during the civil war.

As stated in the declaration...many colonists allready had their own forms of governemnt in place when the crown came in to surpress them after the fact and after they said they wouldnt do any such thing.

[tedteague]

Slavery and weather or not states would be admitted as slave or free was perhaps the single defining issue of the 20 years leading up to and during the civil war.

As stated in the declaration...many colonists allready had their own forms of governemnt in place when the crown came in to surpress them after the fact and after they said they wouldnt do any such thing.

The real, underlying issue was states rights vs federal government. It was unresolved from the constitution, not in slavery itself, but in how much the fed govt could regilate states. The same controversy exists today in Roe v Wade. The South, simply put, didnt think the Federal Govt had the right to decide if slavery was legal or not. This led to the controversy of nullification, whereby states could choose to ignore laws that they viewed as unconstitutional. They took it a step further and secceeded. To say it was about slavery is a gross over simplification, but it's what is generall taught in school . . . of course the very nature of this thread is aruguably the failures of schools to educate.

[tedteague]

Slavery and weather or not states would be admitted as slave or free was perhaps the single defining issue of the 20 years leading up to and during the civil war.

As stated in the declaration...many colonists allready had their own forms of governemnt in place when the crown came in to surpress them after the fact and after they said they wouldnt do any such thing.

I dont think the Crown did anything to suppress the colonists that isn't standard procedure now. Once again, they barely taxed them, knowingly let them smuggle in their own goods, and as for the British ruling the colonists? Ben Frankling (one of the more respected founding fathers himself) was the primary emissary to the Crown, John Adams was the mayor of Boston. The Founding fathers were the ones in power, hence, they got an entire group to revolt

[denuseri]

Yes..states rights...the right for people of a given state to own slaves. smh

[IAN 2411]

[QUOTE=MMI;873387]Furthermore, Britain entered into treaties with the Indians agreeing that they would be allowed to retain certain lands in return for trade. Apparently, these treaties affected George Washington's personal ambitions to acquire more land and cost him a lot of money. This, coupled with the fact that his career prospects within the British Army were damaged because of Fort Necessity (following Jumonville) meant that his loyalty to the Crown was now in question.

The taxes demanded by Britain were seen as an attempt to usurp the authority of the colonial governments' right to raise taxes, and a boycott of British goods ensued. Eventually Britain had to recognise that the radical colonies would always do as they wished and gradually removed nearly all of the direct taxes it had imposed. Tea, alone, was still taxed directly.

However, this was a symbol of British power and authority and so tea remained boycotted by the radicals/republicans. The boycott was threatened by the fact that, eventually, Britain reduced the tax on tea, and. to prevent cheap tea being bought by the colonials, a group of republicans destroyed a cargo being landed in Boston: the Boston Tea Party.QUOTE]

Thank MMI, you have taught me something i should probably have known, I often wondered what the Boston Tea Party was all about. It was fleetingly glanced at during a history lesson that i didn’t care for. My only comment is that it is a pity it never caught on and a few people with the like mind of myself never did the same to the tea that was coming in to Tilbury, the caffeine in tea messes with my nerves and i have always drank coffee. I suppose the quote above on a BDSM site is in the right place, i could use it as a self inflicted punishment on myself, one pot of tea and quiver like a jelly for about a week. I could play games and see how long it would take to get a fried egg out of the pan on a spatula.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


Slavery was one aspect of the Civil War, among the least important at the time. Slavery was a doomed institution anyway, a last gasp of agrarianism which would have ended with the rise of industrialism. Tractors and cotton gins would have made slavery too expensive to continue, and world opinion would have been the final straw. It might even be argued that forcibly freeing the slaves did more damage to the eventual civil rights movement than if they had been freed voluntarily. The race-hatred and resentment of the slave states might not have become so ingrained into society.

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

[denuseri]

I guess we should have waited a few more years to rebel then lol.

[tedteague]

Yes..states rights...the right for people of a given state to own slaves. smh

Specifically, whether ot not the Fed Govt had the power to say "you cant do something" thats not in the constitution. This is where Judicial interpretation comes into play.

[tedteague]

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.


Thats very true, in fact. The US is only one of two states to have abolished slavery through war

[tedteague]

But alas, this thread is now very much off topic, and admittently, I am to blame. If anyone would like to further the discussion for causes/effects of civil war, then I will happily continue elsewhere

Back on topic

What I know about the "Founding Fathers" (In quotes cause I'm not sure who exactly is or isn't)
1. The legend of Washington skipping a silver dollar across the Potomic was not to make Jefferson jealous; he was trying to kill a duck
2. Ben Frankling invented the gloryhole
3. The Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton feud started as a debate regarding the taste of Sam Adam's lager
4.Sam Adam's is in fact a lager
5. Patrick Henry was apparently into bdsm as well, and would chain his wife in the basement for days at a time
6. John Hancock signed his nam extra large, not only so the king could read it without his glasses, but also because he had a grudge against a fellow signatory named Charles Cotesworth Pickney, who had to sign his name at the bottom and extra small because of the huge (han)cock at the top

[DuncanONeil]

And the Lords and Ladies have returned to the USofA! Only they now call themselves Senators and Representatives!


That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

[steelish]

Because Benjamin Franklin has been mentioned many times (and in an unfavorable light by some) I feel the need to post something on him, since I have already posted on George Washington.

Some seem to think that there was no attempt to reach out to Great Britain with peaceful intentions. There was. Over the course of several years there were missives sent to Parliament (remember, back then it took months to send letters overseas) and there were interactions with nobles who were "stationed" in the colonies. On December 22, 1754 Franklin wrote a letter to Governor William Shirley. By reading this letter, it is easy to see that there is an attempt to relate to Britain and it's representatives how strenuous and difficult it was to live as an extension of another country...under rule of a government so far away with no representation.

The letter can be found here (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2365)

He then later wrote to Joseph Galloway (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2366), which was nearly a letter of warning. The British full well knew how those in the colonies felt. Furthermore, it is eroneous to state that Franklin was the impitus of it all. It was no one single person, it was a collective...otherwise how would the Americans (many of whom were armed with pitchforks and other farming implements) have defeated the well-armed British? Does anyone really believe that a handful of 50 to 60 men incited all of America to rise up in arms? Not hardly. That's like saying one group of current Tea Partiers are going to convince all of America to revolt. Not gonna happen.

Oh, and as to how Franklin felt about slavery... (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2185)

And for anyone truly interested enough to do a bit of reading on Franklin (http://www.english.udel.edu/lemay/franklin/)

[steelish]

Our Founding Fathers were once revered in this country as divinely inspired, courageous visionaries. But now, after the past 100 years of "enlightenment," we've come to realize that they were nothing but old, white, racist, heathens. The "myth" of our Christian founding has been obliterated and, at best, we now know that they were no more than "deists" at best.

That's what the progressives have had to do to the memory of those great men. Men who — while not perfect, certainly, men with flaws — were in fact, mostly Christian and nearly all believers.

In order to restore the country, Americans have to restore the men who founded it on certain principles to the rightful place in our national psyche.

How about the man known at the time as "the father of the American Revolution," but now has become all but forgotten; Samuel Adams. Here is a story about him with the help of a man named Stephen McDowell, a historian from the Providence Foundation.

In the first two years of the War for Independence, the Americans had seen a few successes but many more defeats. If you ever get frustrated or down in your life, remember that George Washington lost every single battle he fought for over a year during the opening stages of the war.

By 1777, prospects were grim with little hope of overall victory in the war. By September, the army had been driven out of New York and New Jersey and had lost the strategic Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York.

On September 11, Washington was defeated at the Battle of Brandywine in Delaware; Americans had 200 soldiers killed, 500 wounded and 400 captured. Keep in mind that Washington only had about 14,000 troops. With the defeat, his troops deserted and numbers fell to only 6,000.

Ten days later in Pennsylvania, another 300 soldiers were killed or wounded and 100 captured at the Paoli Massacre.

By now, only 20 members of the Continental Congress even remained together and they met to decide whether they should even continue the struggle for liberty or if it was now a lost cause.

One of those present was Samuel Adams, a delegate from Massachusetts who had been involved in the cause of independence from the beginning. In fact, he had earned the title, "Father of the American Revolution" for his leadership since even before the Stamp Act in 1765.

King George was well aware of Adams' leadership in the rebellion, placing a bounty on his head and sending troops to capture him and kill him. In fact here is what the British order said as reported by the British officer in charge: "Our business was to seize a quantity of military stores and the bodies of Messrs. Hancock and Adams."

Samuel Adams suffered greatly for the cause. The British virtually destroyed his home; he had to leave his family for long periods of time and he was in continual danger of capture and death.

But Adams' faith in God and the cause of liberty were greatly needed that day in late September 1777. He spoke to his fellow congressmen, telling them "Gentlemen," he said, "your spirits appear oppressed with the weight of the public calamities."

He then told them that they could not show it to the American public. He told Congress: "Our affairs, it is said, are desperate! If this be our language, they are indeed. If we wear long faces, long faces will become fashionable. The eyes of the people are upon us."

Sam Adams knew that if Congress openly showed their fear to the people, the cause of liberty would be over. He also told them, "We have proclaimed to the world our determination 'to die freemen, rather than to live slaves' ... we have appealed to heaven for the justice of our cause, and in heaven have we placed our trust. Numerous have been the manifestations of God's providence in sustaining us."

Then he said, "In the gloomy period of adversity, we have had 'our cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.' We have been reduced to distress, and the arm of omnipotence has raised us up... Let us still rely in humble confidence on him who is mighty to save. Good tidings will soon arrive."

His confidence and faith in God convinced them.

Adams' statement also turned out to be prophetic, as it wasn't long after this that one of the most significant battles in history took place — one of the seven most important battles of all time happened after that. British General John Burgoyne was defeated by colonial forces under the command of Horatio Gates at Saratoga, New York. General Washington called it a "signal stroke of Providence. The arm of Omnipotence" was evident in the victory.

Afterward, Congress approved a resolution, which included Adams' call for a national day of "Thanksgiving." But Sam Adams did not intend the day to be set aside for eating turkey and pie while watching football and parades. Instead, it was set aside for "solemn thanksgiving and praise."

Here's the way he described that praise: "With one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor ... and that together with their sincere acknowledgments of kind offerings they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public councils of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the Providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings: independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost."

Oh my goodness, call the ACLU. Where were the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? The PSCS? Or the NSA, the FBI or the CIA? They were nowhere at our founding. That twisted, perverted, nonsense came over 100 years later. Check the Constitution, you'll find no mention of it — zero.

What you will find is protection from the state for religion. Look up the Constitution of Massachusetts — a constitution that Sam Adams helped write. It is the world's oldest constitution, still in use. Take a look at how perverted our thinking has become on this issue.

Samuel Adams was there at the beginning. There's a reason this man is only known now for beer.

[MMI]

Roughly two thirds of the American colonials did not support the rebels - did not feel the King's oppression in the same way as Washington, Adams or Paine did; obeyed Parliament's laws and kept the King's peace. I like to think that, while the US owes much to its founders, it also owes a debt of gratitude to the Loyalists and the neutrals who endured oppression and deprivation by the American revolutionary forces and authorities, and by withstanding such persecution made their own contributions to the new nation's growth and character: to Loyalists such as Flora MacDonald. This is her story -

The most famous Loyalist was Flora MacDonald. She was known as a heroic woman in Scotland before she ever came to North Carolina. When in Scotland, she had saved the life of "Bonnie Prince Charlie"--Charles Stuart, whose grandfather had been king of England and Scotland. Charles had started a rebellion in Scotland in an effort to regain the throne. At the bloody Battle of Culloden in 1746, his army was defeated and he was almost captured by the enemy British soldiers. Flora MacDonald helped
him to escape.

In 1774, Flora MacDonald and her husband, Allan, came to North Carolina with their family. Before they were allowed to make the voyage from Scotland, they had to take an oath, along with all the other Highlanders from Scotland, that they would remain forever loyal to the British Crown.

The MacDonald family settled on a plantation called Killiegray in Anson County. In 1776, the royal governor, Josiah Martin, formed an army to fight the revolutionary movement. Allan MacDonald became a major in that army. Along with his son and son-in-law, he was part of 1,600 North Carolina troops who marched off to the coast to join British troops.

Before the army left, Flora MacDonald, riding a beautiful white horse, came to the camp to cheer the men on. She called to them to fight bravely and remain loyal to the king. She rode with them during their first day’s march and spent the night with them before returning home.

On February 27, 1776, the Loyalists were soundly defeated by the Patriot militia at Moore’s Creek Bridge near Wilmington. Major MacDonald, their son, and their son-in-law were taken captive. Courageously, Flora MacDonald visited and comforted the families of others whose men had been killed or captured.

The Revolutionary state government seized Killiegray, and Flora MacDonald was left homeless and nearly penniless. She eventually returned to Scotland, where she was reunited with her husband after a separation of nearly six years. When she died in 1790, nearly 4,000 friends and neighbors came to honor the courageous Scotswoman at her funeral.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Legendary_Loyalist_Women.pdf

[MMI]

It seems to me that Benjamin Franklin - father of another prominent Loyalist - was arguing first for an equal union with the Mother country, so that the 13 colonies, whose population was just 2.5 million at the time, should be able to undo Acts of Parliament and grant themselves freedoms that the even the British (population 5.8 million) did not have; and when he could not achieve this, denounced the system he wanted to join as corrupt and defiling: a union of the living with the dead. Yet he would avoid war unless compelled to it "by dire necessity".

What was that necessity? The right to trade with enemies. How is that for the common good of the old and new lands?

Is that why his son repudiated him?



... how would the Americans (many of whom were armed with pitchforks and other farming implements) have defeated the well-armed British?

By getting the French to pay for the rebel army's weapons and uniforms, and eventually to fight for them, too.

[Thorne]

Interesting post, MMI. It just goes to show that each side had their heroes, and heroines. But, like beauty, loyalty and heroism is in the eye of the beholder.

Roughly two thirds of the American colonials did not support the rebels
I haven't been able to verify this. As near as I can figure, a large part of the general populace were indifferent one way or the other. The wealthy land-owners (like Allan MacDonald) were more loyalist, perhaps, while the merchant classes favored the rebellion.

I like to think that, while the US owes much to its founders, it also owes a debt of gratitude to the Loyalists and the neutrals who endured oppression and deprivation by the American revolutionary forces and authorities, and by withstanding such persecution made their own contributions to the new nation's growth and character
Naturally, none of the rebels or neutrals (or even loyalists) suffered "oppression and deprivation" at the hands of the British forces and , or their Hessian mercenaries.

Flora MacDonald helped him (Bonnie Prince Charles) to escape.
By dressing him as a maid. Of course, she was a Jacobite, a rebel if you will, and was later imprisoned in the Tower of London for her actions.

In 1774, Flora MacDonald and her husband, Allan, came to North Carolina with their family. Before they were allowed to make the voyage from Scotland, they had to take an oath, along with all the other Highlanders from Scotland, that they would remain forever loyal to the British Crown.
Gee, I wonder why? Probably because they had already been in revolt once!

The MacDonald family settled on a plantation called Killiegray in Anson County. In 1776, the royal governor, Josiah Martin, formed an army to fight the revolutionary movement. Allan MacDonald became a major in that army.
"Although they tried to stay out of the trouble, eventually everyone had to choose a side. Since Allan MacDonald had signed an oath of loyalty to England in order to receive a military commission, the MacDonalds decided to remain loyal to the king. (http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/workshops/womenshistory/flora.html)"
Not quite as heroic as you put it, but understandable.

Before the army left, Flora MacDonald, riding a beautiful white horse, came to the camp to cheer the men on. She called to them to fight bravely and remain loyal to the king. She rode with them during their first day’s march and spent the night with them before returning home.
Apparently, this is a local legend, which may or may not be true. Makes for a good story, though.

The Revolutionary state government seized Killiegray, and Flora MacDonald was left homeless and nearly penniless.
Or, as I read it, their home was robbed by angry local Patriots, and she had to live with one of her daughters.

She eventually returned to Scotland, where she was reunited with her husband after a separation of nearly six years.
Not quite. Allan was released (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_MacDonald_%28Scottish_Jacobite%29)in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange and took command of the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants), Second Battalion in Nova Scotia, where Flora joined him in 1778. Then she returned to Scotland, in 1779.

As you can see, there are different ways to tell the story, depending on which facts you manage to dig up, and how they are presented. As near as I can tell, the only really memorable act she performed was in helping Prince Charles, which rightly gave her a lot of recognition among the North Carolina Scots community. She was, through her husband, a land-owner and had been in the Colonies for less than 2 years when the war reached her. For my money, if she is the most famous of the British loyalists during the Revolution, it's a sad commentary on those loyalists.

[denuseri]

How odd that most of the Revolutionary War Historians have estimated that only between 15 and 20 percent of the white population of the colonies were Loyalists.

Thats hardly 2 thirds of anything. Its 1/5th at best.

[MMI]

Interesting post, MMI. It just goes to show that each side had their heroes, and heroines. But, like beauty, loyalty and heroism is in the eye of the beholder.


So it seems, but I don’t really think we’re talking about acts of heroism, so much as providing inspiration to the new American nation. It's interesting to note the resistance to the idea that Loyalists could provide any inspiration or example to America



Originally Posted by MMI
Roughly two thirds of the American colonials did not support the rebels

haven't been able to verify this. As near as I can figure, a large part of the general populace were indifferent one way or the other. The wealthy land-owners (like Allan MacDonald) were more loyalist, perhaps, while the merchant classes favored the rebellion.

Except that the MacDonalds were impoverished before they came to America. And some of the merchants were very wealthy indeed.

As you couldn’t verify or refute my assertion, I thought I’d try: it may be that I have to refute myself! Apparently it was none other than John Adams who came up with the 1/3 for the revolution, 1/3 against, and 1/3 neutral, and this has seemingly been repeated up until 2000 when a certain Robert Colhoun said that 40, 45 … even more than 50 percent of the white population supported the rebel cause while only 15 to 20 percent remained loyal to the Crown. (I note that den has discovered this, too.) How Colhoun knew better in 2000 than Adams did at the time is something I cannot explain.



I like to think that, while the US owes much to its founders, it also owes a debt of gratitude to the Loyalists and the neutrals who endured oppression and deprivation by the American revolutionary forces and authorities, and by withstanding such persecution made their own contributions to the new nation's growth and character

Naturally, none of the rebels or neutrals (or even loyalists) suffered "oppression and deprivation" at the hands of the British forces and , or their Hessian mercenaries.

Of course they did: but there’s no need for me to talk about that on an American website – there’s no end to claims of British atrocities in American versions of the history. I am pointing out that the rebels behaved just as badly.

And, yes, we did use Hessian mercenaries. So did the American Revolutionaries.


Flora MacDonald helped him (Bonnie Prince Charles) to escape.
By dressing him as a maid. Of course, she was a Jacobite, a rebel if you will, and was later imprisoned in the Tower of London for her actions.
In 1774, Flora MacDonald and her husband, Allan, came to North Carolina with their family. Before they were allowed to make the voyage from Scotland, they had to take an oath, along with all the other Highlanders from Scotland, that they would remain forever loyal to the British Crown.

Gee, I wonder why? Probably because they had already been in revolt once!

Precisely, but if you just want to answer your own questions, perhaps there’s no point in my responding. Would you allow people with a history of rebellion travel to a volatile country without giving assurances of loyalty? George Washington, I would add, would also have sworn an oath of loyalty when he joined the British Army’s Virgina Regiment – but he broke his word. The MacDonalds were clearly more honourable than he, and America should draw lessons from that: that loyalty is an admirable thing, and when one gives one’s word of honour, one should be bound by it.



The MacDonald family settled on a plantation called Killiegray in Anson County. In 1776, the royal governor, Josiah Martin, formed an army to fight the revolutionary movement. Allan MacDonald became a major in that army.
"Although they tried to stay out of the trouble, eventually everyone had to choose a side. Since Allan MacDonald had signed an oath of loyalty to England in order to receive a military commission, the MacDonalds decided to remain loyal to the king."
Not quite as heroic as you put it, but understandable.

As you noted above, the oath the MacDonalds took was to enable them to travel to America, not so that Allan would obtain a commission in the Army, as you now suggest. They went to N Carolina in 1774, but Allan did not join the Royal Highland Emigrants until 1775 or 1776. I don’t quite know how heroically I put it (I was quoting another source after all) but I do see their decision to support the Crown as noble, and the point to be drawn from it is how one must accept one’s duty to one’s country. Surely you can’t denigrate that?


Before the army left, Flora MacDonald, riding a beautiful white horse, came to the camp to cheer the men on. She called to them to fight bravely and remain loyal to the king. She rode with them during their first day’s march and spent the night with them before returning home.
Apparently, this is a local legend, which may or may not be true. Makes for a good story, though.

The story is repeated without mentioning it is only a legend in my own quoted source. It is clearly well-believed, and if it is not true, then, just like Arthur and the burnt cakes, or Robert the Bruce and the spider, it ought to be.

But this gives me an opportunity to criticise your own sources (although I know Tantric will disapprove). She’s evidently a Carolinian, and has an Irish name. I could be forgiven for supposing she’s a Catholic. She seems to have an ambivalent view about Flora and I wonder if she disapproves of her Presbyterianism, or if, being both American and Irish, there’s an irrational anti-Anglo Saxon gene in her make-up that cannot forgive the fact that the MacDonalds took the oath and kept it. She’s certainly unable to distinguish between English and British, nor does she seem to know that there was a difference between the Scots and the Jacobites. The Jacobites included English, Irish and (of course) the French, as well as Scots (mostly Highlanders): the Government army included Scots (mostly Lowlanders), Ulstermen and Hessians as well as English. The Jacobites wanted to remove the Hanoverians from the throne and restore the James II – admittedly of Scottish descent, but 2nd generation English and focused on the bigger prize, St Edward’s crown, not the Scottish one, not because they believed that the Stuarts were the rightful rulers, but because they believed in absolute monarchy and hoped for greater religious freedom (a euphemism for Catholic supremacy). They consider Parliament to be illegal, as well as the Union between England and Scotland.

Frankly, in any conflict of evidence, I would be disinclined to accept her account before any other.


The Revolutionary state government seized Killiegray, and Flora MacDonald was left homeless and nearly penniless.
Or, as I read it, their home was robbed by angry local Patriots, and she had to live with one of her daughters.

How you managed to obtain that reading is beyond me: “Revolutionary state government” is quite different from “angry local patriots”. Flora was made homeless by the rebel government in a deliberate political act, and the fact that she had to hide causes me to believe that she feared for her safety. Remember, Ms Kerrigan told us that Flora settled in Wilmington among a substantial population of other Scots. Who were the angry local patriots?

Anyway, surely Flora’s fortitude in the face of such intolerance is admirable.



She eventually returned to Scotland, where she was reunited with her husband after a separation of nearly six years.

Not quite. Allan was released in 1777 as part of a prisoner exchange and took command of the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants), Second Battalion in Nova Scotia, where Flora joined him in 1778. Then she returned to Scotland, in 1779.

I’m inclined to accept the Wikipedia version you have provided rather than my own, but I don’t think it makes any difference to my argument or yours.


As you can see, there are different ways to tell the story, depending on which facts you manage to dig up, and how they are presented. As near as I can tell, the only really memorable act she performed was in helping Prince Charles, which rightly gave her a lot of recognition among the North Carolina Scots community. She was, through her husband, a land-owner and had been in the Colonies for less than 2 years when the war reached her. For my money, if she is the most famous of the British loyalists during the Revolution, it's a sad commentary on those loyalists.

It’s not her fame that’s important, but the inspiration she gave her fellow Loyalists, and the legacy she has left to America.

[Thorne]

It's interesting to note the resistance to the idea that Loyalists could provide any inspiration or example to America[
I'm not denying that Loyalist actions could provide inspiration, or at least admiration, among Americans. I just don't know of any. The only one quoted here is apparently not verifiable, and is largely interpreted as being legend rather than history. It might be true, and if so is certainly admirable on her part.

Except that the MacDonalds were impoverished before they came to America. And some of the merchants were very wealthy indeed.
You were right, they were impoverished. I missed that, sorry. But the article by Deanna Kerrigan does say that MacDonald gave his oath in order to receive a commission, not in order to emigrate.

I am pointing out that the rebels behaved just as badly.
As has been noted many times, in many places, bad things happen in war, committed by all sides.

Would you allow people with a history of rebellion travel to a volatile country without giving assurances of loyalty?
I haven't found anything that says that Allan MacDonald was a Jacobite or a rebel. He was a Captain when Flora married him, presumably in the British Army. As such he would naturally have taken an oath of loyalty.

George Washington, I would add, would also have sworn an oath of loyalty when he joined the British Army’s Virgina Regiment – but he broke his word.
Washington resigned his commission sometime after the French and Indian War. I don't know what kinds of oaths he might have made, but breaking those oaths in light of what he perceived as wrongdoing by the Crown does not, in my opinion, impugn his honor.

I do see their decision to support the Crown as noble, and the point to be drawn from it is how one must accept one’s duty to one’s country. Surely you can’t denigrate that?
The fact that MacDonald held to his oath is certainly worthy of admiration. It's doubtful that Flora would have been required to pledge any oath: as a wife it would have been expected of her to support her husband's decisions.

The story is repeated without mentioning it is only a legend in my own quoted source. It is clearly well-believed, and if it is not true, then, just like Arthur and the burnt cakes, or Robert the Bruce and the spider, it ought to be.
LOL! Yeah, there are many stories which ought to be true, whether they are or not.


She’s evidently a Carolinian, and has an Irish name. I could be forgiven for supposing she’s a Catholic.
I haven't been able to find anything about Deanna Kerrigan. By your own admission you are guessing about her background and motives. Perhaps it's your irrational dislike of Irish-Catholics which are leading you to your conclusions? :)

How you managed to obtain that reading is beyond me: “Revolutionary state government” is quite different from “angry local patriots”. Flora was made homeless by the rebel government in a deliberate political act, and the fact that she had to hide causes me to believe that she feared for her safety. Remember, Ms Kerrigan told us that Flora settled in Wilmington among a substantial population of other Scots. Who were the angry local patriots?
According the the Wikipedia article, "After her husband was taken prisoner, Flora remained in hiding while the American Patriots ravaged her family plantation and took all her possessions." It says nothing about the government.

A Wikipedia article (which is consistent with other articles I found) regarding the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moore%27s_Creek_Bridge) where Allan MacDonald was captured states that "The battle had significant effects within the Scots community of North Carolina, where Loyalists refused to turn out when calls to arms were made later in the war, and many were routed out of their homes by the pillaging activities of their Patriot neighbors."

Anyway, surely Flora’s fortitude in the face of such intolerance is admirable.

Agreed.

It’s not her fame that’s important, but the inspiration she gave her fellow Loyalists, and the legacy she has left to America.
I will concede that her actions were admirable, and are still admired by the descendants of the Scottish loyalists surviving in North Carolina today. I'm not certain I could be inspired by someone who gave up and returned to Scotland at least 5 years before the Revolution ended, though. However, she was in her late 50's by then, hardly the age to be roughing it in the Americas.

On a personal note, MMI, I want to say that, while I have always enjoyed history, especially military history, I was never that well read on more than the basics of the American Revolution. Your posts have been education in themselves and have certainly inspired me to do additional research into areas I hadn't even known existed. Thanks for that.

[MMI]

I haven't been able to find anything about Deanna Kerrigan. By your own admission you are guessing about her background and motives. Perhaps it's your irrational dislike of Irish-Catholics which are leading you to your conclusions? :)


I married one (to the disgust of my Orange father)!

...


On a personal note, MMI, I want to say that, while I have always enjoyed history, especially military history, I was never that well read on more than the basics of the American Revolution. Your posts have been education in themselves and have certainly inspired me to do additional research into areas I hadn't even known existed. Thanks for that.

Same here - although I previously had little interest in history. Thanks to you, to den, to stealth and everyone else who has joined in from time to time.

But don't think I'm gonna stop arguing over it now ... ;)

[Thorne]

Originally Posted by Thorne
I haven't been able to find anything about Deanna Kerrigan. By your own admission you are guessing about her background and motives. Perhaps it's your irrational dislike of Irish-Catholics which are leading you to your conclusions?

I married one (to the disgust of my Orange father)!
I knew there was a reason for it!

[DuncanONeil]

Thanks Thorne!

[DuncanONeil]

Precisely, but if you just want to answer your own questions, perhaps there’s no point in my responding. Would you allow people with a history of rebellion travel to a volatile country without giving assurances of loyalty? George Washington, I would add, would also have sworn an oath of loyalty when he joined the British Army’s Virgina Regiment – but he broke his word. The MacDonalds were clearly more honourable than he, and America should draw lessons from that: that loyalty is an admirable thing, and when one gives one’s word of honour, one should be bound by it.



Seems as Washington's oath of military service is not a true issue. Unless you'd like to claim it succeeds discharge.
"Late in 1757, Washington reluctantly returned to his home at Mount Vernon, having failed to overcome a long bout with dysentery. His health improved enough for him to rejoin his soldiers in the spring campaign of 1758. Later that year he joined John Forbes in his march on Fort Duquesne. A somewhat disillusioned Washington resigned his command a few months later." (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1191.html)

[DuncanONeil]

I married one (to the disgust of my Orange father)!

...


Once called my dad a "dirty Englishman" during a face to face argument. I was prepared so the instantaneous punch failed to land. And no I did not hit him!

[MMI]

I might have married an Irish girl, Thorne, but I still support The Rangers. So maybe that gene is there, after all ... yes, I think you're right ...

[Thorne]

I might have married an Irish girl, Thorne, but I still support The Rangers. So maybe that gene is there, after all ... yes, I think you're right ...

Ahh! I've been a Ranger fan since Eddie Giacomin played in goal, without a mask or all of the padding modern tenders wear!

[Lion]

Because Benjamin Franklin has been mentioned many times (and in an unfavorable light by some) I feel the need to post something on him, since I have already posted on George Washington.

Some seem to think that there was no attempt to reach out to Great Britain with peaceful intentions. There was. Over the course of several years there were missives sent to Parliament (remember, back then it took months to send letters overseas) and there were interactions with nobles who were "stationed" in the colonies. On December 22, 1754 Franklin wrote a letter to Governor William Shirley. By reading this letter, it is easy to see that there is an attempt to relate to Britain and it's representatives how strenuous and difficult it was to live as an extension of another country...under rule of a government so far away with no representation.

The letter can be found here (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2365)

He then later wrote to Joseph Galloway (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2366), which was nearly a letter of warning. The British full well knew how those in the colonies felt. Furthermore, it is eroneous to state that Franklin was the impitus of it all. It was no one single person, it was a collective...otherwise how would the Americans (many of whom were armed with pitchforks and other farming implements) have defeated the well-armed British? Does anyone really believe that a handful of 50 to 60 men incited all of America to rise up in arms? Not hardly. That's like saying one group of current Tea Partiers are going to convince all of America to revolt. Not gonna happen.

Oh, and as to how Franklin felt about slavery... (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2185)

And for anyone truly interested enough to do a bit of reading on Franklin (http://www.english.udel.edu/lemay/franklin/)


Great man, as an Engineer in school, I have nothing but respect for his scientific achievements. But he was human, and not a perfect one at that. I don't know what negative stuff have been said about him, (Or rather haven't taken the time to check) but this is one reason I'm not a particular fan of the guy. Upon the rule of New France (Canada), he was convinced the way forward was unifying the entire continent under one language and religion. This did not really go over well with the French who lived in Quebec. Anyone imposing religion on someone else seems like someone who shouldn't speak on the matter imho.

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP4CH1LE.html

Again, great work with lightening! Thanks Benji

[steelish]

Great man, as an Engineer in school, I have nothing but respect for his scientific achievements. But he was human, and not a perfect one at that. I don't know what negative stuff have been said about him, (Or rather haven't taken the time to check) but this is one reason I'm not a particular fan of the guy. Upon the rule of New France (Canada), he was convinced the way forward was unifying the entire continent under one language and religion. This did not really go over well with the French who lived in Quebec. Anyone imposing religion on someone else seems like someone who shouldn't speak on the matter imho.

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP4CH1LE.html

Again, great work with lightening! Thanks Benji

No one is perfect. But there are NO politicians today (that I know of) who feel the same way the founding fathers felt about serving their country. The only people that come close are some military personnel.

Franklin was a prodigious inventor. Among his many creations were the lightning rod, glass armonica (a glass instrument, not to be confused with the metal harmonica), Franklin stove, bifocal glasses and the flexible urinary catheter. Franklin never patented his inventions; in his autobiography he wrote, "... as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

Guess why he invented the Franklin (pot bellied) stove... it was because the number one cause of death for women was their skirts catching on fire as they cooked over open flames.

In 1736, Franklin created the Union Fire Company, one of the first volunteer firefighting companies in America. In the same year, he printed a new currency for New Jersey based on innovative anti-counterfeiting techniques which he had devised.

His inventions also included social innovations, such as paying forward. Franklin's fascination with innovation could be viewed as altruistic; he wrote that his scientific works were to be used for increasing efficiency and human improvement. One such improvement was his effort to expedite news services through his printing presses.

One of the things that kids today believe is that Franklin supported slavery. It is so easy to research this and find that not only was he against slavery, he was an abolitionist.

[Lion]

No one's perfect, I know I'm far from it. But if we're going to remember a person for his scientific accomplishments, I could care less if he supported slavery (I'm talking 1700s). It happened, it's over, and irrelevant. It definitely helps his reputation that he was an abolitionist, but as a politician his views on forced conversion is appalling.

Franklin was a great man, but this one flaw is tragic. It's appalling that someone so revered was so intolerant towards another religion when his peers decided to draft a document allowing for freedom of religion, an amazing accomplishment. I don't really respect him as a politician, or humanitarian. I feel that some people will propogate half a truth to give him an almost mythical status instead of being completely honest. Admire the real person, appreciate that despite Franklin's intolerance, there were better men that fought for tolerance and won.

[denuseri]

When one is reviewing things said by Franklin conserning Canada or any topic one should keep in mine the context and time period in which they were said.

Before the Revolution Franklin was a looking out for the intrests of the Brittish Crown in the New World.

As stated by the Historian Jared Sparks; Franklin, when the War between Brittian and France drew to a close:

"...published anonymously a tract, entitled The Interest of Great Britain Considered, in which be advanced reasons for keeping Canada. His views are briefly stated in a letter to Lord Kames, written a short time before. "No one can more sincerely rejoice than I do, on the reduction of Canada; and this is not merely as I am a colonist, but as I am a Briton. I have long been of opinion, that the foundations of the future grandeur and stability of the British empire lie in America; and though, like other foundations, they are low and little now, they are, nevertheless, broad and strong enough to support the greatest political structure that human wisdom ever yet erected. I am, therefore, by no means for restoring Canada. If we keep it, all the country from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi will in another century be filled with British people. Britain itself will become vastly. more populous, by the immense increase of its commerce; the Atlantic sea will be covered with your trading ships; and your naval power, thence continually increasing, will extend your influence round the whole globe, and awe the world! If the French remain in Canada, they will continually harass our colonies by the Indians, and impede if not prevent their growth; your progress to greatness will at best be slow, and give room for many accidents that may for ever prevent it. But I refrain, for I see you begin to think' my notions extravagant, and, look upon them as the ravings of a mad prophet." The same sentiments were more fully explained and defended in the Canada Pamphlet, as the above mentioned tract has usually been called.

He argued, that the possession of Canada was essential to the security of the British colonies against the Indians on the frontiers, whom the French had always continued to keep in their interest, and who were instigated by them to commit depredations and outrages upon the inhabitants; and, moreover, that, politically considered, this security was a justifiable ground for retaining a territory, which had been acquired in open war by the blood and treasure of the nation. It would, likewise, defeat for ever the ambitious designs of France for extending her power in America by seizing a large part of the continent and confining the British settlements to a narrow line along the coast, which design had long been manifest, and was indeed the principal cause of the war. Forts and military posts would afford but a feeble barrier, as experience had proved. He repudiated the idea advanced by some, that this was an affair of the colonies alone and he showed, that the whole British empire was as much concerned in it as any of its remote parts; that the wealth, strength, and political power of Great Britain would be immensely increased by the growing prosperity of the colonies, if they were encouraged and protected by a wise policy and a due regard to the ties by which they were united to the mother country.

These points were illustrated by a mass of facts, indicating a profound knowledge of the history and condition of the colonies, and of the commerce and political interests of Great Britain. It had been said, that Canada ought to be left to the French as a check to the growth of the colonies, which might in process of time become too formidable to be controlled by a distant master. To which he replied, "A modest word, this check, for massacring men, women, and children;" and suggested the easier method adopted by Pharaoh for preventing the increase of the Israelites.

The success of this pamphlet was as great as the author could desire. By the advocates of the measure, which he supported, it was held up as irrefutable; and by the opposite party, who attempted an answer, it was praised as spirited, able, and ingenious, and as containing every thing that could be said on that side of the question. It was believed to have produced an influence on the minds of the ministry, which was felt at the negotiation for peace.

At any rate, Canada was retained. The author afterwards acknowledged his obligation to his friend, Mr. Richard Jackson, for assistance in preparing the pamphlet for the press; but it is not known to what extent or in what manner this assistance was rendered.

It is a curious fact, that Franklin was thus instrument in annexing Canada to the British dominions, which was in reality the first step in the train of events, that led in a few years to the independence of the, colonies; a result, which be afterwards contributed so much to accomplish, but which at this time was as little anticipated by him, as by any member of the British cabinet."

If he advised one religion for Canada under Brittish rule, it was due to all the dificulties presented when any monarch attempts to rule a nation of multiple faiths at odds with each other evidenced by the numerous wars in Europe; of which Brittian and France in paticular had become well versed and experienced.

Things changed over time apparently for Franklin more over but not nessesarally.

During the founding of the United States...it was Franklin who was one of the strongest and most outspoken suporters for the freedom of religion in our new nation.

But then, that new nation wasn't going to be ruled by any one man or woman.

Before that time no one had really seized the opportunity to seperate a state from a religion.

[MMI]

Actually, Thorne, I meant I still support Glasgow Rangers

I can't make any connection between the New York Rangers (or even the Detroit Red Socks) and my marrying an Irish girl and pissing off my father

[MMI]

But then, that new nation wasn't going to be ruled by any one man or woman.



There does seem to be a misconception that the "old" country was ruled by one man. Ever since the Charter of Liberties (1100), the monarch's rule has been subject to limitations of the law. The English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution (1688) established finally and legally that the monarch ruled subject to the consent of Parliament. So, although the British forces fought in America in the name of the King, they were sent there by a duly elected Parliament.

Had George Washington accepted the kingship of America, he would have had greater powers than the British King George, in all likelihood.

[denuseri]

So remind me again why it was that even in the late 1800's and early 1900's said members of parliment still scurried back and forth in an attenpt to curry favor with said monarchs?

I mean..if the King is just a figure head...why bother?

Oh thats right even though power had to be shared with the various members of nobility on different occassions the monarch still retained a great deal of actual power despite what was written on paper.

Fortunately Mr Washington was a very honorable man and refused such offers becuase he believed that perhaps the people of this new nation had found a better way to govern themselves where one rises to power out of a sence of duty and merit as opposed to being held under the tyranny of those who came to power through the hapenstance of their birth.

[MMI]

Because the traditions and trappings of Parliament have all been set up to preserve the myth the the monarch rules the country. But no King or Queen has held any real power for centuries. OK - only the monarch can dissolve Parliament, or declare war, or do a few other things that no-one else can, but just let them try without first being told to by Parliament or by the Privy Council. It would bring about a constitutional crisis of immense proportions. I would suggest it could destroy the United Kingdom as we know it, and probably the Commonwealth too.

The King did not have any power worth speaking about, but he did have something that was every bit as important. He had relatives and friends in high places. Many of the old men sitting in the House of Lords were the King's uncles, cousins, nephews or were related by marriage, and, because they sat in Parliament, they had powers the King did not. So the King could influence events by persuading a like-minded Lord Something-or-Other to vote for or against a particular resolution.

Furthermore, Members of Parliament who sat in the House of Commons would frequently owe their position to the patronage of aristocratic landowners, who would make sure that only candidates they approved of were voted for in the Rotten Boroughs within their domains. Thus, they had to do their masters' bidding if they wanted to keep their Seats.

People rose to power in GB in the same way that people rise to power in US: through influence, wealth and preference. And it seems to me that these factors are influenced more by birth than by ability. Duty and merit have nothing at all to do with it.

As for Mr Washington's honour, didn't he preside over a country that promised, in the Treaty of Paris, to pay all legitimate debts to loyalists, to restore confiscated property, and not to confiscate loyalist property in future, and didn't that country allow debts to loyalists remain unpaid, fail to restore confiscated property and continue to confiscate loyalist property in settlement of unpaid debts? What honour is there in allowing the first international treaty your country signs to be ignored in such a way?

Or was the Treaty signed with no intention of trying to honour it?

[denuseri]

Washington I believe signed it in good faith, but he couldn't control the purse strings...that was Congress.

As for the GB's Monarchy and its paths to power....sounds a lot to me like what they call in the south a "good ole boy" system...and whether its an official power or not...power it is all the same.

[MMI]

I don't buy that. Washington could exercise control when he wanted to: e.g. the Militia Act 1792.

"Old Boy Network" is a term frequently used over here - generally referring back to the public/private schools the men in power went to ("Old Boys"). But what I'm reading is that the routes to power here and there are very similar, despite one being a monarchy and the other a republic.

(Btw, for the avoidance of doubt, a public school is not the same thing as a state school over here. A public school is a school established with a charitable purpose (to educate the rich and privileged) while a private school is a business enterprise (educating the less well-connected) for profit.)

[steelish]

Basically, our Founding Fathers believed that rights come from God...no matter what religion you follow. Think of this:

If you allow men to grant rights, slaves will ALWAYS be a part of life. Natures law does not create slavery and Natures God abhors it.

[MMI]

Perhaps the most interesting group of Loyalists were enslaved African-Americans who chose to join the British. The British promised to liberate slaves who fled from their Patriot masters. This powerful incentive, and the opportunities opened by the chaos of war, led some 50,000 slaves (about 10 percent of the total slave population in the 1770s) to flee their Patriot masters. When the war ended, the British evacuated 20,000 formerly enslaved African Americans and resettled them as free people.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/13c.asp

Looks like Freedom came from the so-called tyrants!

[Thorne]

Natures law does not create slavery and Natures God abhors it.
Sorry, steelish, but I have to disagree. Virtually EVERY culture ever has had one form of slavery or another. And virtually EVERY religion has condoned it.
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

There are others.

Quran 24:58 "O ye who believe! Let your slaves, and those of you who have not come to puberty, ask leave of you at three times (before they come into your presence)."

It was not the churches who freed the slaves in America, but MEN and WOMEN! Using the LAWS of men. Most churches in the US fought against the repeal of slavery, just as they fought against equal rights for Blacks and for women, just as they fight now against equal rights for gays. And as they have done in the past, when those rights are eventually granted the church leaders will beat their chests and loudly proclaim that it was GOD'S will that those rights be granted. Hypocrites!

Also, speaking of nature, there are some (at least one, anyway) species of ants which take other ants as slaves and force them to work. Nature is harsh and unforgiving.

[steelish]

Thorne, people have a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 12 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.

[Thorne]

People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin.
And yet, one verse I quoted above seems to say just that:
Leviticus 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
That sounds like ethnic slavery to me.

And let's not forget Deuteronomy:
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

So it sounds OK to enslave your enemies, if they surrender, or kill the men and enslave the women and children if they resist.


In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
This sounds like typical apologetics. "They LIKED being slaves! They WANTED to be slaves. So that made it all right!"


The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
Slavery is slavery. No matter what kind of ribbons and bows you try to dress it up with.

And the religious arguments for and against slavery are nothing new. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_2_44/ai_n48711394/)


The first edition of Domestic Slavery was published in 1846. It is a monograph compilation of correspondence, presented initially in serial format, between two significant Baptist leaders, Francis Wayland and Richard Fuller. Wayland, president of Brown University, argued against the biblical validity of slavery, and Fuller, Baptist pastor and South Carolina native, argued that slavery was indeed biblically valid.

As with most of the Bible, it is so filled with contradictions and vague assertions that anyone can "prove" anything they wish simply by cherry-picking those verses which agree with their point. As I have done myself.

[MMI]

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society.


I found that to be a very interesting comment. I had never considered that the Bible's only purpose was to show believers how to find their way through the evils of this world without becoming corrupted, and that it had no real intention of eradicating evil at all. I supposed it had a much broader purpose.

All God's laws must now be looked at in this way. Reading Exodus or Deuteronomy, you will find no reference to how society should be governed or how nations should interact; He clearly foresaw that He could leave those tasks to the likes of Marx and Machiavelli. Instead, God chose to point the way for an individual to save his soul, without necessarily even contributing to the society he lives in.

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

[MMI]

This sounds like typical apologetics. "They LIKED being slaves! They WANTED to be slaves. So that made it all right!"



Yes, I think it does - in some cases anyway. People did choose to sell themselves into slavery, not to fulfill any kind of desire or yearning, but to avoid a worse fate, such as poverty and destitution. There are also instances where people of great accomplishment and ambition chose enslavement in order to attain wealth and power, and I believe that several important characters in history became slaves voluntarily and rose to great heights in China, Persia, Rome and many other places.

(I cannot avoid the temptation to use this post to promote a little scratching at http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php/12891-Young-Slave.)

[steelish]

It seems to me, therefore, that governments and other organs of society (the Church?) have no place in God's plans and that He does not endorse any country's nationhood or its constitution, whether written or not. So much for the divine right of kings! Is it appropriate, therefore, for countries to require specific religious observances to be carried out - e.g., a daily act of worship in schools?

(Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to Religion?)

This is where the idea of separation of church and state comes in. Governments and other political agenda groups have no place in God's plans and should not be involved in churches...but that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government. As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship. That was the only daily required ritual in school while I was growing up.

[Thorne]

that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.
I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.


As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring? The Pledge of Allegiance is not an act of worship.
If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.

[MMI]

As to required specific religious observances such as a daily act of worship being carried out in schools...to what are you referring?

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

[steelish]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure if you were referring to something in the US. That answered the question.

[steelish]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus". Each week we could change the term so that all religions were included. Think the Christian right would go for that? After all, it's not an act of worship, for crying out loud!

Teaching our kids to place their hands over their hearts and recite the pledge is no different than teaching them to make the sign of the cross and recite the Lord's Prayer. It's a blatant act of worship. It only differs in who, or what, you are worshiping.


lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah. It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.

[Thorne]

lol. "Under God" can mean anything to anyone. To a Native American it might be Nature itself, to another, it might be Jehovah to yet another it might be Buddah.
And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.


It makes no difference so long as your faith promotes goodness and generosity to your fellow man.
And that can be done without forcing said faith down the throats of everyone else in the country. Faith is a personal experience, not a community requirement. And while I can see plenty of good and generous people of faith around, I have seen damned few religions which are good and generous to anyone other than their own kind. And religions tend to use people's faiths to turn them against those who are different.

[Thorne]

Section 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (UK legislation) states, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."
At least they don't tell you who to worship. I assume they wouldn't be against the worship of Satan?

[steelish]

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

If those leprechauns are what creates your sense of humanity and decency, then go for it.



And that can be done without forcing said faith down the throats of everyone else in the country. Faith is a personal experience, not a community requirement. And while I can see plenty of good and generous people of faith around, I have seen damned few religions which are good and generous to anyone other than their own kind. And religions tend to use people's faiths to turn them against those who are different.

I agree. I do not follow any organized religion. I do, however, believe there is a greater force at work; whether it is nature itself or God. That being said, I do not find the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive. Simply saying it does not make me a bad person. Nor does it make the person standing next to me a bad person.

[Thorne]

If those leprechauns are what creates your sense of humanity and decency, then go for it.
No, what creates my sense of humanity and decency is my inborn sense of humanity and decency. I believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I allowed myself to behave inhumanely towards others then, in all honesty, I would have to admit that it was all right for them to behave inhumanely towards me. The idea that morality comes from some super-faerie has been thoroughly falsified.


I do, however, believe there is a greater force at work; whether it is nature itself or God.
That is faith, a personal thing, and everyone is entitled to have their beliefs. That does not necessarily mean that what you believe in is true for anyone but you.


That being said, I do not find the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive. Simply saying it does not make me a bad person. Nor does it make the person standing next to me a bad person.
I'm not implying that it does. And I don't find it offensive either. I just find the idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth to be rather silly.

[steelish]

I'm not implying that it does. And I don't find it offensive either. I just find the idea of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth to be rather silly.


The Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States of America...NOT a piece of cloth. The "piece of cloth" is symbolic of the U.S.

[Thorne]

The Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States of America...NOT a piece of cloth. The "piece of cloth" is symbolic of the U.S.
Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

And I agree, it is a symbol. An effigy. It's not a holy relic, it's a piece of cloth. It can have many meanings to many different people. To a soldier in battle it may be a sign of pride and courage. To a frightened tourist overseas it can be a sign of safety and acceptance. To an enemy soldier it is a sign of evil and hatred. But regardless, it is still just a piece of cloth, and I do not owe it any allegiance. To the nation, yes. To the leaders, perhaps, if they have earned it. (Not so much, lately.) But to the flag? Sorry, no.

[DuncanONeil]

"Had George Washington accepted the kingship of America, he would have had greater powers than the British King George, in all likelihood. "

Isn't that a guess?

[DuncanONeil]

"Most churches in the US fought against the repeal of slavery,"

The how do you reconcile that by the time of the Civil War all of the North had eliminated slavery?

[DuncanONeil]

Quote Originally Posted by steelish View Post
that doesn't mean that religion and faith has no place in Government.


I disagree. Religion certainly has no place in government. Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities. Keep the religion in church, where it belongs.

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

[DuncanONeil]

If it's not an act of worship, then we shouldn't have any problem with removing the phrase, "under God." Or maybe we can change it to "under Allah" or "under Shiva" or "under Zeus".

"God" is less exclusive than any of the other names you mention.

[DuncanONeil]

And to an atheist it's simply paying homage to a magic man (or woman) in the sky. It has no basis in reality, and it would be just as valid to declare the US to be one nation under leprechauns.

Only if you say it!

[steelish]

Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

And I agree, it is a symbol. An effigy. It's not a holy relic, it's a piece of cloth. It can have many meanings to many different people. To a soldier in battle it may be a sign of pride and courage. To a frightened tourist overseas it can be a sign of safety and acceptance. To an enemy soldier it is a sign of evil and hatred. But regardless, it is still just a piece of cloth, and I do not owe it any allegiance. To the nation, yes. To the leaders, perhaps, if they have earned it. (Not so much, lately.) But to the flag? Sorry, no.


But you just admitted the flag is a symbol (and not a holy symbol). A symbol of safety and acceptance. A symbol of pride and courage. A symbol (to the enemy) of evil and hatred. But you do not say what it symbolizes to you. What does it symbolize that generates such apathy?

[Thorne]

I think you are talking apples and oranges here!

I am indeed. Keep the apples out of the orange basket. And vice versa.

[Thorne]

But you just admitted the flag is a symbol (and not a holy symbol). A symbol of safety and acceptance. A symbol of pride and courage. A symbol (to the enemy) of evil and hatred. But you do not say what it symbolizes to you. What does it symbolize that generates such apathy?
Apathy? About my country? I think not. But I'll answer your question.

To me the flag symbolizes:
a people who rose up against tyranny to establish a new nation, where ALL men (and women) could be free.
a divided people who fought, brother against brother in a horrid war, but who eventually managed to triumph and prove, once and for all that ALL people are free.
a nation which, not once but twice, sent her sons around the world to fight tyranny and oppression and help her allies and neighbors, sending millions of men into England, France, North Africa, Italy, much of the Pacific, and on and on, without even THINKING of conquering those nations for her own.
a nation which, though caught by surprise, managed to get into the space race and place men on the moon! On the MOON, people! An alien world, even though it is right next door, and ONLY Americans have planted their flag. And yet, we do NOT claim it for our own!
a nation which welcomed millions of immigrants to her shores, including my great-grandparents, and made free peoples of them all.
but now, she is a nation in trouble, beset by greedy politicians and corporations, whose very laws are being trampled and demolished by drug dealers and other criminals.
a nation on the brink of collapse due to the destruction of her education system, once among the best in the world.
a nation under attack, from without and within, trying to be defended by a people who are more afraid of giving offense than in doing what is right.
a nation which still, despite more than 200 years of trying, can't seem to understand that ALL people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation, have the same rights!

No, steelish. I am not apathetic. I am just plain scared. Because I don't think my nation can long survive the political, religious and racial assaults upon her and her people. Because our government is no longer of the people, by the people, for the people, but is now against the people.

That is what the flag symbolizes to me. Yet it is still only a piece of cloth, nothing more. Worth a few dollars in the local convenience store. It is a nation, a people, to whom I owe my allegiance, not a flag.

[DuncanONeil]

It was unresolved from the constitution, not in slavery itself, but in how much the fed govt could regilate states.

How was this question unresolved?

[DuncanONeil]

I am indeed. Keep the apples out of the orange basket. And vice versa.

"Religion certainly has no place in government." In this I disagree.

"Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities." But for this I agree.

But then I make a distinction between these two concepts!

[steelish]

Apathy? About my country? I think not. But I'll answer your question.

To me the flag symbolizes:
a people who rose up against tyranny to establish a new nation, where ALL men (and women) could be free.
a divided people who fought, brother against brother in a horrid war, but who eventually managed to triumph and prove, once and for all that ALL people are free.
a nation which, not once but twice, sent her sons around the world to fight tyranny and oppression and help her allies and neighbors, sending millions of men into England, France, North Africa, Italy, much of the Pacific, and on and on, without even THINKING of conquering those nations for her own.
a nation which, though caught by surprise, managed to get into the space race and place men on the moon! On the MOON, people! An alien world, even though it is right next door, and ONLY Americans have planted their flag. And yet, we do NOT claim it for our own!
a nation which welcomed millions of immigrants to her shores, including my great-grandparents, and made free peoples of them all.
but now, she is a nation in trouble, beset by greedy politicians and corporations, whose very laws are being trampled and demolished by drug dealers and other criminals.
a nation on the brink of collapse due to the destruction of her education system, once among the best in the world.
a nation under attack, from without and within, trying to be defended by a people who are more afraid of giving offense than in doing what is right.
a nation which still, despite more than 200 years of trying, can't seem to understand that ALL people, regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation, have the same rights!

That is what the flag symbolizes to me. Yet it is still only a piece of cloth, nothing more. Worth a few dollars in the local convenience store. It is a nation, a people, to whom I owe my allegiance, not a flag.

It symbolizes all that to you, yet you still think of it as just a piece of cloth. A piece of cloth no different from your socks...or the dishcloth.


No, steelish. I am not apathetic. I am just plain scared. Because I don't think my nation can long survive the political, religious and racial assaults upon her and her people. Because our government is no longer of the people, by the people, for the people, but is now against the people.

I too, feel that same fear. How can any sane American NOT feel that fear? The horrible thing is the political, religious and racial assaults are coming from within...if they were being brought upon us by another country, America would most definitely band together and fight the assault. It's her own people doing the harm. But it's not the fault of religion. It's not the fault of politics. It's not the fault of race. It's the fault of the people themselves who use those things as weapons. Only by reaching out to one another with decent human kindness in our souls can we overcome this insanity.

[steelish]

Actually it's to both. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...."

Why didn't you embolden and to the Republic for which it stands? That is quite important.

[Thorne]

"Religion certainly has no place in government." In this I disagree.

"Attempting to govern a nation based upon religious principles leads to things like the Taliban, Sharia law, the Inquisition and other atrocities." But for this I agree.

But then I make a distinction between these two concepts!

I sure would like some kind of explanation for that. If you mean that churches have a right to be represented in the law, then I will agree with you. But if you mean that religions have a right to force their moralities into the law then I must respectfully disagree! I can't bring myself to trust the morality of any group of people who proclaim their moral basis comes from an invisible being or an ancient collection of fireside stories.

[Thorne]

It symbolizes all that to you, yet you still think of it as just a piece of cloth. A piece of cloth no different from your socks...or the dishcloth.
Of course. As I said, it's not as if there's only one in the world. If someone trashes my flag I can buy another one this afternoon. No big deal.


But it's not the fault of religion. It's not the fault of politics. It's not the fault of race. It's the fault of the people themselves who use those things as weapons.
But don't you see? It's the religious groups, the political parties, who separate people and make them see opponents with fear. Christians against Muslims. Muslims against Jews. Democrats against Republicans. ALL such groups, through their leaders, spout hatred and fear, setting one group against another, instead of sitting down and working through our differences. Listen to the lies and hatred vomited up by political commentors, from both sides. Listen to the hatred form the religious groups regarding gays. Yes, it's the people who put out the hate, but so many of them are prompted to do so by their leaders, who use religion and/or politics to justify their comments.


Only by reaching out to one another with decent human kindness in our souls can we overcome this insanity.
I can get behind this sentiment. Sadly, decent human kindness seems to be out of style in America today.

[Thorne]

Why didn't you embolden and to the Republic for which it stands? That is quite important.

It's important, but wasn't the point I was trying to make.

[steelish]

See there, it's all in the way you look at and interpret a sentence. To me it was the entire point.

[Thorne]

My POINT was that the pledge places allegiance to the FLAG above allegiance to the Republic. I have no qualms about pledging allegiance to the Republic, but I don't feel I owe any allegiance to a symbol. It would be tantamount to pledging allegiance to one's avatar.

[denuseri]

Or perhaps like pledging allegiance to one's collar?

"I pledge allegiance to my Collar and to my Owner for which it stands, one slave under His whip, submissive yet spirited, with blowjobs and ass fucking for all."

[tedteague]

It's me again, the annoying guy
Here are 11 freedoms that the founding fathers criminalized after gaining independence
1. Non-marital sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Divorce
4. Dancing
5. Leisure (the typical weekend was 3 days, post-Revolution it was 1 day)
6. Children's Play
7. Gambling
8. Sports - they thought that Greece had fallen because of all the Olympics
9. Drinking
10. Racial Integration
11. Fashion
Freedom, hooray

[DuncanONeil]

I sure would like some kind of explanation for that. If you mean that churches have a right to be represented in the law, then I will agree with you.
Well this is a given!

But if you mean that religions have a right to force their moralities into the law then I must respectfully disagree!
No this is not what I meant. In fact this is what I infered led to the second course.

I can't bring myself to trust the morality of any group of people who proclaim their moral basis comes from an invisible being or an ancient collection of fireside stories.
Perhaps a better way to explain it is that without the codification of some religion way too many people would be little more than spoiled brats, well brats at least. People that are moral from their own compass are way to far and few between. Many of those "fireside stories" are expressions of humanities collective wisdom.

[DuncanONeil]

But don't you see? It's the religious groups, the political parties, who separate people and make them see opponents with fear. Christians against Muslims. Muslims against Jews. Democrats against Republicans. ALL such groups, through their leaders, spout hatred and fear, setting one group against another, instead of sitting down and working through our differences.

You should join some of my other groups and see the vitriol that is spewed towards those that do not hew to the beliefs of the majority. Actually that word represents a misnomer. Perhaps it would be better to say a specific set of beliefs.

[DuncanONeil]

Really!? The founding fathers? Or perhaps the individual states?


It's me again, the annoying guy
Here are 11 freedoms that the founding fathers criminalized after gaining independence
1. Non-marital sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Divorce
4. Dancing
5. Leisure (the typical weekend was 3 days, post-Revolution it was 1 day)
6. Children's Play
7. Gambling
8. Sports - they thought that Greece had fallen because of all the Olympics
9. Drinking
10. Racial Integration
11. Fashion
Freedom, hooray

[Thorne]

People that are moral from their own compass are way to far and few between.
I disagree. It's only that those without a moral compass make the headlines more often. Most people are willing, and able, to maintain a moral center regarding their fellow human beings, even without religion.


Many of those "fireside stories" are expressions of humanities collective wisdom.
Only such wisdom which was collected before about 100AD (give or take), at least as regards the Bible. A few extra years for other books. But you have to realize, too, that much of that "collected wisdom" was taken from relatively small areas of the world, not from a collective humanity. It's more the collected stories of an individual culture, and a culture that is historically obsolete.

[Thorne]

You should join some of my other groups and see the vitriol that is spewed towards those that do not hew to the beliefs of the majority. Actually that word represents a misnomer. Perhaps it would be better to say a specific set of beliefs.
Sorry, not big on joining groups. ANY groups. There's almost always a tendency to set hard and fast rules, which generally insure that the leaders maintain their leadership while eliminating opposition. And as you say, those who see the world differently are then considered pariahs, apostates, heretics, or traitors.

[DuncanONeil]

I disagree. It's only that those without a moral compass make the headlines more often. Most people are willing, and able, to maintain a moral center regarding their fellow human beings, even without religion.

Really no way for us to settle this!


Only such wisdom which was collected before about 100AD (give or take), at least as regards the Bible. A few extra years for other books. But you have to realize, too, that much of that "collected wisdom" was taken from relatively small areas of the world, not from a collective humanity. It's more the collected stories of an individual culture, and a culture that is historically obsolete.

Again more or less. But stories were carried from area to area over the trade routes. Everyone has a creation myth, and nearly everyone has a story of a catastrophic flood.

[Thorne]

But stories were carried from area to area over the trade routes. Everyone has a creation myth, and nearly everyone has a story of a catastrophic flood.
And all of those stories, while having some points in common, have far more differences than similarities. That's how you can tell that they have been "tainted" with the myths of other cultures. The stories of the Bible, for instance, were borrowed (to be polite) from the Babylonians, Egyptians and even the Far Eastern cultures. They were modified to fit the cultures of the Hebrew tribes. And then those cultures spread their myths and stories far and wide, too.

[tedteague]

nope the actual leaders of the Revolution, John Adams especially
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518/11_freedoms_that_drunks,_slackers,_prostitutes_and _pirates_pioneered_and_the_founding_fathers_oppose d_/?page=entire

[Thorne]

Interesting article, tedteague. I have to admit, I wasn't aware of how fun-loving the pre-Revolution populace was.

Just goes to show, though. The politicians have ALWAYS been more interested in controlling other people's personal lives. I especially liked, "Though the Founders did their share of the drinking in early America, in public they attacked the practice during and after the Revolution." Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do!"

[DuncanONeil]

But that is the problem with a myth. That little kernel of truth!


And all of those stories, while having some points in common, have far more differences than similarities. That's how you can tell that they have been "tainted" with the myths of other cultures. The stories of the Bible, for instance, were borrowed (to be polite) from the Babylonians, Egyptians and even the Far Eastern cultures. They were modified to fit the cultures of the Hebrew tribes. And then those cultures spread their myths and stories far and wide, too.

[steelish]

nope the actual leaders of the Revolution, John Adams especially
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518/11_freedoms_that_drunks,_slackers,_prostitutes_and _pirates_pioneered_and_the_founding_fathers_oppose d_/?page=entire

So your source of great wisdom on the founding fathers comes from the Huffington Post? Huh.

Try reading something written by an expert (http://www.three-peaks.net/annette/Godly.htm) on the Founding Fathers. I know what you will say...biased opinion. BUT, David Barton became who he was (was shaped by what he found out) when he studied the founding fathers and began to collect original writings.

[Thorne]

But that is the problem with a myth. That little kernel of truth!
You make an assumption that all myths do indeed have such a kernel of truth. I would say, instead, that they all have a kernel of perceived truth. What is perceived as truth today, may be proven as untrue tomorrow. It was a perceived truth that the Earth was the center of the universe. We now know that to be wrong. Should we, then, give equal weight to those myths which rely upon that one-time truth?

[DuncanONeil]

But you do agree with the kernel theory.


You make an assumption that all myths do indeed have such a kernel of truth. I would say, instead, that they all have a kernel of perceived truth. What is perceived as truth today, may be proven as untrue tomorrow. It was a perceived truth that the Earth was the center of the universe. We now know that to be wrong. Should we, then, give equal weight to those myths which rely upon that one-time truth?

[Thorne]

But you do agree with the kernel theory.
I will agree that they probably had some elements within them which were not completely fabricated. Like any good fiction, blending some reality into the story enhances it, making it easier to accept it as possibly real. Whether or not the primary point of the story is real depends on the particular story.

The catastrophic flood stories, for example. Most early civilizations were centered upon large rivers or natural harbors, areas which would tend to see major flooding periodically, and truly catastrophic flooding rarely. For commoners who rarely, if ever, strayed more than a day's journey from home, seeing everything they've ever known covered in a flood would certainly engender tales of the wrath of the gods destroying the whole world. In effect, the world they knew was destroyed. Not a hard concept to understand. Taking those stories and twisting them into some sort of morality story creates the myth. An angry god: what was he angry about? (People sinned, or they didn't pray hard enough, or they didn't sacrifice enough virgins.) The world destroyed: why would he do that? (To punish everyone, guilty and innocent alike, men, women, children, even animals, except for one righteous family.) Control: how do we make sure he doesn't do that again? (Don't sin, pray harder, sacrifice more virgins. And don't forget to pay the priests.)

So a tiny incident (globally speaking) is blown up into a major myth. Floods happen. Global floods don't.

[Lion]

So your source of great wisdom on the founding fathers comes from the Huffington Post? Huh.

Try reading something written by an expert (http://www.three-peaks.net/annette/Godly.htm) on the Founding Fathers. I know what you will say...biased opinion. BUT, David Barton became who he was (was shaped by what he found out) when he studied the founding fathers and began to collect original writings.

Huffington Post is clearly liberal. David Barton is an evangelical Christian minister who is a Texas Republican Politician. I imagine he is well versed in American history, but with his political activism, he clearly has a biased viewpoint. It seems less academic and more political in nature.

As for the 'expert' article: The quotes are sourced from secondary articles. As in there is no direct proof that the quotes are authentic or fabrications that have come about over the last 200 plus years. A simple google search for "David Barton Christian Nation" will show a lot of links that claim Barton has no real evidence of the quotes.

I don't see what's wrong with reading the Huffington Post for information about the founding fathers. Or watching Fox News for information on the economy, Obama's presidency, War, etc.

[steelish]

My POINT was that the pledge places allegiance to the FLAG above allegiance to the Republic. I have no qualms about pledging allegiance to the Republic, but I don't feel I owe any allegiance to a symbol. It would be tantamount to pledging allegiance to one's avatar.


Not necessarily. The flag is not placed ABOVE the Republic. The flag REPRESENTS the Republic. Besides, allegiance to one's avatar means allegiance to the person for which it stands. The symbol has to mean something, it has to stand for something. The flag is a symbol that stands in place of the Republic, a form of government. It gives people a visual reference...a reminder, if you will. I simply find it hard to equate it with an object that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. You're saying it's the same as pledging allegiance to a pair of dirty socks, or a basketball, or a used paint brush. That is ridiculous.

[Thorne]

Not necessarily. The flag is not placed ABOVE the Republic. The flag REPRESENTS the Republic.
No, the wording is clear: I pledge allegiance TO the flag... AND to the Republic for which it stands.


Besides, allegiance to one's avatar means allegiance to the person for which it stands. The symbol has to mean something, it has to stand for something.
I agree, but it does not have to mean the same things to different people. And the symbol itself is not interchangeable with the thing, or person, it represents.


The flag is a symbol that stands in place of the Republic, a form of government. It gives people a visual reference...a reminder, if you will. I simply find it hard to equate it with an object that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
I never claimed it had no meaning. I agree that it DOES have meaning. But that meaning can be different to different people. Even people who honor this country, and believe in this country, don't necessarily see the flag as meaning the same things. And I, for one, don't see the flag as being so connected to this nation that disrespecting the flag would mean an attack on the nation. That's just ludicrous. The flag, itself, is a piece of cloth. It can be purchased almost anywhere. What it represents cannot.


You're saying it's the same as pledging allegiance to a pair of dirty socks, or a basketball, or a used paint brush. That is ridiculous.
If those items have meaning for you, then they can have as much symbolism, for you, as the flag. What if those dirty socks were all you had left of someone who died saving your life? Would they mean something to you? Maybe the basketball belonged to a child that is no longer with you. Some symbolism there, too. (Okay, you might have me at the used paint brush.) But that doesn't mean that your neighbor has to have the same respect for those dirty socks, or that basketball. It does not mean that he should be forbidden from washing or discarding all dirty socks without due reverence. And it does not mean he must pledge allegiance to those items.

All I'm really saying, though, is that the WORDS of the Pledge of Allegiance are just words, they are not sacrosanct. There was not always a Pledge of Allegiance. The words (http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm) have changed in the last 120 years, and will likely change again as political winds blow around this country.

I have no problem with pledging my allegiance to this country, and to the people of this nation. I do not feel we owe allegiance to the politicians who run the country, though as elected representatives we owe them a certain level of respect and obedience. I also feel that, as Americans, we owe a certain level of respect to our flag, because of the nation it symbolizes. I do not feel we owe allegiance to that flag, however.

[tedteague]

what you posted was article talking about how chriistian the founding fathers were. that goes right in line with the article talking about how they forced chrisitan cirtues and values on the population

[tedteague]

and it's not an article that the Huffington Post wrote itself. It was taken from an excerpt of a book by historian Thaddeus Russell

[steelish]

I don't see what's wrong with reading the Huffington Post for information about the founding fathers. Or watching Fox News for information on the economy, Obama's presidency, War, etc.


Nor do I. But then, I DON'T agree with it being the only source of information on a subject. I do not rely solely upon David Barton or Fox News or CNN or NBC or CBS or the local papers or even a single internet source. I read/explore a variety of sources and reach my own conclusions based upon my research.

[steelish]

All I'm really saying, though, is that the WORDS of the Pledge of Allegiance are just words, they are not sacrosanct. There was not always a Pledge of Allegiance. The words (http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm) have changed in the last 120 years, and will likely change again as political winds blow around this country.


How amusing that the article you link to says the very thing I've been saying: "The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches."

[Thorne]

I don't deny that this is the REASON for the pledge. It's the words which I object to. It's the statement of pledging TO the flag, first and foremost, AND to the republic. I don't see any sense in pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, however symbolic that cloth might be.

And yes, we should specify that it is indivisible. If it is not, we end up with another Europe, divided states constantly at war with one another. I do object to the phrase, "Under God", though, which I'm sure will surprise no one. There was an ad campaign around here years ago, proclaiming that "Jesus is Lord in" this town. I objected to that, as well. I am a citizen of this town, of this nation, and I do not, and will not, accept any religious fantasy as ruler!

[DuncanONeil]

what you posted was article talking about how chriistian the founding fathers were. that goes right in line with the article talking about how they forced chrisitan cirtues and values on the population

Only they did not FORCE values of a specific religion.

[DuncanONeil]

We treat our flag different than most (since I haven't been to them all) other countries in the world. Perhaps it is just because we have such a close link between our country and the flag that represents it.


I don't deny that this is the REASON for the pledge. It's the words which I object to. It's the statement of pledging TO the flag, first and foremost, AND to the republic. I don't see any sense in pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, however symbolic that cloth might be.

And yes, we should specify that it is indivisible. If it is not, we end up with another Europe, divided states constantly at war with one another. I do object to the phrase, "Under God", though, which I'm sure will surprise no one. There was an ad campaign around here years ago, proclaiming that "Jesus is Lord in" this town. I objected to that, as well. I am a citizen of this town, of this nation, and I do not, and will not, accept any religious fantasy as ruler!

[DuncanONeil]

There was an ad campaign around here years ago, proclaiming that "Jesus is Lord in" this town. I objected to that, as well. I am a citizen of this town, of this nation, and I do not, and will not, accept any religious fantasy as ruler!

Hah! I knew there was a religion for you! http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=31198#articleComments

[Thorne]

Sounds more like a community center. People want the social aspects of a church without all the superstition. And they're still looking for someone else to tell them how to be good. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly not a religion. And it's not for me. I'll take a pass.

[tedteague]

i posted evidence to the contrary a few days ago

[DuncanONeil]

i posted evidence to the contrary a few days ago

??????????

[tedteague]

the link i posted? I'll post it again
http://www.alternet.org/media/148518/11_freedoms_that_drunks,_slackers,_prostitutes_and _pirates_pioneered_and_the_founding_fathers_oppose d_/?page=entire