http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/)
I have doubts about #3, 5,6,7 and 8...
According to our Founders, the states are not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, some states, such as Virginia among others, specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that that state right was understood.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/#ixzz1RHDCVHxG (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/#ixzz1RHDCVHxG)
?
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2011, 06:27:40 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/)
I have doubts about #3, 5,6,7 and 8...
According to our Founders, the states are not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, some states, such as Virginia among others, specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that that state right was understood.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/#ixzz1RHDCVHxG (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/#ixzz1RHDCVHxG)
?
If they didn't get it in writing, it doesn't count. :cool:
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2011, 06:27:40 PM
Read more: www.foxne
Yeah, that's about as far as I needed to go.
Mony = prejudiss :(
With great reason Caliga.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 05, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2011, 06:27:40 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/)
I have doubts about #3, 5,6,7 and 8...
According to our Founders, the states are not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, some states, such as Virginia among others, specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary just as an extra precaution to make sure that that state right was understood.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/#ixzz1RHDCVHxG (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/04/10-things-might-not-know-about-our-independence/#ixzz1RHDCVHxG)
?
If they didn't get it in writing, it doesn't count. :cool:
:yes:
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2011, 06:27:40 PMIn fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, some states, such as Virginia among others, specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary
I don't think that's all that widely unknown. Maybe among Fox readers.
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
Sometimes it's good to be the bad guy.
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. I was busy witnessing the power of our fully operational revolution.
Quote from: Scipio on July 05, 2011, 08:26:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. I was busy witnessing the power of our fully operational revolution.
Well, it couldn't have been that powerful, seeing as it failed in its war of aggression to the north.
Quote from: viper37 on July 05, 2011, 06:27:40 PM
I have doubts about #3, 5,6,7 and 8...
I'm not sure why you'd have doubts about 3. I don't necessarily know that the info in 3 is 100% accurate, but the general thrust of it seems right.
5 is a matter of interpretation, and 6 is definately technically correct, but it's just semantics, at least now--in casual modern usage, a "democracy" and a "republic" are the same thing, but they weren't in the 18 century. Don't see why you'd doubt it, though.
7? Who knows, really? Who cares?
As for 8, well, that's tricky. I think it's
possibly correct as to how the founding fathers saw things in 1776--after all, the text of the Declaration of Independence says, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States". However, the Articles of Confederation stated that the union was to be perpetual, which doesn't sound like it was intened that states could leave if they wanted, and the Articles were ratified just 5 years later (and Congress had been generally adhering to them, in one form or another, since shortly after the Declaration of Independence was adopted). I'm sure some of the Founders thought of the new nation as a temporary or potentially temporary arrangement at the time, but I'm not sure what the consensus would have been. And how the surviving Founders would have felt about the issue when the Constituion was ratifies in 1789, or later in their lives, might be a very different story.
The article shows that Nicole Swinford is an idiot who loves to state as fact things that are merely opinion.
There are almost certainly no credible historians who still doubt that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Henning's children, for instance. While the DNA only narrows the possibilities to something like five men, only Thomas Jefferson himself had the opportunities.
And yes, the US is a democracy. It isn't a pure democracy, true, but democracy means "rule by the people" and the US has that.
The Paul Revere stuff is well-known, as is Adams' role in the Boston Massacre trial.
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 08:30:33 PM
Well, it couldn't have been that powerful, seeing as it failed in its war of aggression to the north.
It succeeded quite well in that war.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britishbattles.com%2Fimages%2Fyorktown%2Fsurrender-washington.jpg&hash=4af1fd35934c2cb1374350ee2c0cef7a39c08d34)
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
STFU
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
The article shows that Nicole Swinford is an idiot who loves to state as fact things that are merely opinion.
There are almost certainly no credible historians who still doubt that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Henning's children, for instance. While the DNA only narrows the possibilities to something like five men, only Thomas Jefferson himself had the opportunities.
I thought his brother was a credible suspect?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 09:53:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
STFU
Oh I'm certainly happy to be an American but we kind of made it up as we went. 1776? I would have been a closet loyalist. ^_^
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 10:00:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 09:53:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2011, 07:12:46 PM
1. That the American Revolution was an act of villainy without parallel in history.
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
STFU
Oh I'm certainly happy to be an American but we kind of made it up as we went. 1776? I would have been a closet loyalist. ^_^
I know you homotypes like to identify with
90210, but "Tories" actually had nothing to do with Tori Spelling.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 10:02:13 PM
I know you homotypes like to identify with 90210, but "Tories" actually had nothing to do with Tori Spelling.
Umm, I'm young. Original 90210 started when I was 5. Why would I identify with that? :x
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 10:04:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 10:02:13 PM
I know you homotypes like to identify with 90210, but "Tories" actually had nothing to do with Tori Spelling.
Umm, I'm young. Original 90210 started when I was 5. Why would I identify with that? :x
Poor defense. Explain generations of pillowbiter worship of Judy Garland then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 09:55:38 PM
I thought his brother was a credible suspect?
DNA-wise, yes, but Randolph was never at Monticello, according to what is left of Jefferson's papers, when Sally conceived. TJ himself always was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 10:07:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 10:04:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 10:02:13 PM
I know you homotypes like to identify with 90210, but "Tories" actually had nothing to do with Tori Spelling.
Umm, I'm young. Original 90210 started when I was 5. Why would I identify with that? :x
Poor defense. Explain generations of pillowbiter worship of Judy Garland then.
How would I know? I'm not some old queen. :blurgh:
Now Audrey, Greta, Joan, Katherine and Liz? :wub:
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
Seems well-justified to me. They wrote a declaration justifying it. You might want to read it. It makes a good case.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
Seems well-justified to me. They wrote a declaration justifying it. You might want to read it. It makes a good case.
Unfortunately, it's been co-opted by the Teabaggers. Very annoying.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
Seems well-justified to me. They wrote a declaration justifying it. You might want to read it. It makes a good case.
Meh welcome to being a colonist. Again, I'm so happy that they managed it but I'm not sure I could have been a supporter then.
All men are created equal but we should keep slavery. OK.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Unfortunately, it's been co-opted by the Teabaggers. Very annoying.
They try to co-opt Paul Revere, too, but they come off sounding like morons when they do.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 09:52:17 PM
That's a bit much. But yes you are right that it was hardly justified.
Seems well-justified to me. They wrote a declaration justifying it. You might want to read it. It makes a good case.
Meh welcome to being a colonist.
Most of the people living in the Americas at that time were not colonists.
Quote
Again, I'm so happy that they managed it but I'm not sure I could have been a supporter then.
Not surprised.
Quote
All men are created equal but we should keep slavery. OK.
I don't think the DOI says anything about slavery. Where is this argument made?
Pfft Garbon wouldn't have been a loyalist anyways, he's be out in the slave quarters. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 10:14:12 PM
Meh welcome to being a colonist.
Is this an argument? Smells like a red herring to me.
QuoteAgain, I'm so happy that they managed it but I'm not sure I could have been a supporter then.
I should think it would have depended on your circumstances.
QuoteAll men are created equal but we should keep slavery. OK.
The vast majority of the delegates wanted to keep the accusation that Jefferson wrote, to the effect that King George
Quote...has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this excrable commerce
but had to drop it when the carolina delegations refused to agree to the declaration containing the charge.
The founders knew the nature of slavery and accepted its continuance reluctantly, as a matter that could not be resolved in a time of war. If that is the most damning thing you have, remember that it was legal under the law the Americans were fighting against, as well. At best the slavery issue is a tie between the British and the Americans.
I'll sometimes get suckered into reading these lists at work, and I can say with absolute certainty 100% of any type of "list" put on a major media outlets website will be a combination of fluff, opinion, urban legend, or things already widely known.
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
Most of the people living in the Americas at that time were not colonists.
Not sure who we are talking about then. Native Americans? :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
Not surprised.
Well yes, this isn't the first time I was negative about the American Revolution.
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
I don't think the DOI says anything about slavery. Where is this argument made?
Oh, so we aren't supposed to take the reasoning for supporting independence and apply it to the historical state that resulted? Seems to me if your reasons for independence include a line about all men being equal - it's a bit rash to keep an institution that so egregiously violates that principle.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
Is this an argument? Smells like a red herring to me.
More like an off the cuff remark. Colonies exist to service the mother country. It shouldn't be surprising that they are exploited or that colonists might feel they lack representation - as they often did...at least of an effective sort.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
I should think it would have depended on your circumstances.
Sure, of course. But it this pub-esque gathering that we have, on the merits, I still don't see that I could objectively be in favor.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
The vast majority of the delegates wanted to keep the accusation that Jefferson wrote, to the effect that King George Quote...has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this excrable commerce
but had to drop it when the carolina delegations refused to agree to the declaration containing the charge.
The founders knew the nature of slavery and accepted its continuance reluctantly, as a matter that could not be resolved in a time of war. If that is the most damning thing you have, remember that it was legal under the law the Americans were fighting against, as well. At best the slavery issue is a tie between the British and the Americans.
So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 11:51:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
Most of the people living in the Americas at that time were not colonists.
Not sure who we are talking about then. Native Americans? :unsure:
People born in the Americas of course, and hence no more "colonists" than I am.
Quote
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
Not surprised.
Well yes, this isn't the first time I was negative about the American Revolution.
Quote from: Berkut on July 05, 2011, 10:37:25 PM
I don't think the DOI says anything about slavery. Where is this argument made?
Oh, so we aren't supposed to take the reasoning for supporting independence and apply it to the historical state that resulted? Seems to me if your reasons for independence include a line about all men being equal - it's a bit rash to keep an institution that so egregiously violates that principle.
You aren't supposed to take reasoning that doesn't apply to independence and apply it to the decision to rebel, no. There were many, many, MANY problems with American social, cultural, and economic conditions at the time of the Revolution - nothing that the society was not perfect is a pretty idiotic way to argue that the decisions to rebel was flawed in some fashion.
Why not complain that America did not give women the right to vote, and hence how can they make a claim to equality? Or that only the wealthy got a voice? Or that gay people could not marry, or that children were required to work in inhumane conditions at time? Or that American Indians were treated unfairly?
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 11:56:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
Is this an argument? Smells like a red herring to me.
More like an off the cuff remark. Colonies exist to service the mother country. It shouldn't be surprising that they are exploited or that colonists might feel they lack representation - as they often did...at least of an effective sort.
Nor should it be surprising that colonies tend to decide not to do that any longer when they do not perceive that their interests are served by continuing to service the mother country any longer, and said mother country can no longer force compliance.
What is your point here? That because the Americas were setup to serve Britain, the Americans had no right to decide they didn't want to do that any longer?
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 11:56:28 PM
So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?
NO, I think grumbler didn't say anything about forgiving slavery. IN fact, I am rather certain he did not.
I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 11:56:28 PMSo slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?
You know damned well that the signers of the Declaration, as well as the Constitution, had the complete expectation that slavery would eventually disappear based upon the inevitable political and philosophical maturation of the nation.
Unfortunately, the cotton gin came along. So we fought a war to accelerate the inevitable.
So don't be silly.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 10:50:58 PM
The founders knew the nature of slavery and accepted its continuance reluctantly, as a matter that could not be resolved in a time of war. If that is the most damning thing you have, remember that it was legal under the law the Americans were fighting against, as well. At best the slavery issue is a tie between the British and the Americans.
I dunno man - I'd more put it that at
worst slavery was a tie between the British and the Americans.
It is completely fair to point out that in the Empire slavery was legal in the late 18th century. However, Britain's history in the very early 19th century diverged quite sharply from the US on the topic of slavery. So at best, slavery was a point in the UKs favour. In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 12:07:58 AM
I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.
Because he's black on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and gay on all the other days. :bowler:
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 12:07:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 11:56:28 PM
So slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?
NO, I think grumbler didn't say anything about forgiving slavery. IN fact, I am rather certain he did not.
I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.
He said:
QuoteSeems well-justified to me. They wrote a declaration justifying it. You might want to read it. It makes a good case.
which I assumed to mean the Declaration of Independence. Because I assumed such, I assumed that it would be relevant to point out something that I didn't see justified in their case - namely the part where they said all men are created equal. I agree discussing slavery is a tangent but then I wasn't arguing the side that the rebellion was well-justified.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 12:04:34 AM
You aren't supposed to take reasoning that doesn't apply to independence and apply it to the decision to rebel, no. There were many, many, MANY problems with American social, cultural, and economic conditions at the time of the Revolution - nothing that the society was not perfect is a pretty idiotic way to argue that the decisions to rebel was flawed in some fashion.
Why not complain that America did not give women the right to vote, and hence how can they make a claim to equality? Or that only the wealthy got a voice? Or that gay people could not marry, or that children were required to work in inhumane conditions at time? Or that American Indians were treated unfairly?
Again I didn't bring up the DoI and it doesn't really factor into why I think the rebellion wasn't necessarily well-justified.
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 12:06:29 AM
Nor should it be surprising that colonies tend to decide not to do that any longer when they do not perceive that their interests are served by continuing to service the mother country any longer, and said mother country can no longer force compliance.
What is your point here? That because the Americas were setup to serve Britain, the Americans had no right to decide they didn't want to do that any longer?
Sure they have the "right" to decide that. Doesn't really justify rebellion considering that said setup was the whole reason for their existence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 06, 2011, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 06, 2011, 12:07:58 AM
I am still unsure why you are harping on about slavery as some kind of relevance to your claim that the Americas should not have rebelled against Britain.
Because he's black on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and gay on all the other days. :bowler:
Would you rather I be gay every day like Mart? :blurgh:
Besides, I was gay enough this evening. :)
If you feel that you have to produce a written justification for your actions it kind of gives away the fact that you know you're in the wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 12:09:37 AM
I dunno man - I'd more put it that at worst slavery was a tie between the British and the Americans.
It is completely fair to point out that in the Empire slavery was legal in the late 18th century. However, Britain's history in the very early 19th century diverged quite sharply from the US on the topic of slavery. So at best, slavery was a point in the UKs favour. In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.
Can't remember the exact dates, but I was surprised when I learned how late slavery was abolished in the British East Indies.
I'm skeptical that the British would be so keen on abolishing slavery if they still had the American colonies. It's much easier to abolish something you aren't profiting from. They had a difficult time abolishing it in the Caribbean and that was also fairly expensive. Abolition in the Colonies would be much, much more expensive and would be perceived as to threaten the textile industry in Britain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2011, 02:33:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 12:09:37 AM
I dunno man - I'd more put it that at worst slavery was a tie between the British and the Americans.
It is completely fair to point out that in the Empire slavery was legal in the late 18th century. However, Britain's history in the very early 19th century diverged quite sharply from the US on the topic of slavery. So at best, slavery was a point in the UKs favour. In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.
Can't remember the exact dates, but I was surprised when I learned how late slavery was abolished in the British East Indies.
1843. Slavery was abolished (judicially) with GB in 1772, It was abolished in the rest of the empire excluding areas under the control of the East India Co in 1833
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 07:29:50 AM
I'm skeptical that the British would be so keen on abolishing slavery if they still had the American colonies. It's much easier to abolish something you aren't profiting from. They had a difficult time abolishing it in the Caribbean and that was also fairly expensive. Abolition in the Colonies would be much, much more expensive and would be perceived as to threaten the textile industry in Britain.
You talk about Britain as if it was a single organism. There were two lobbies just as there was in the US. Those profiting from slavery wanted to keep it, others campaigned against it largely on moral grounds. No doubt Americans would have been divided along similar lines as they were a few decades later.
Quote from: Gups on July 06, 2011, 07:36:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 07:29:50 AM
I'm skeptical that the British would be so keen on abolishing slavery if they still had the American colonies. It's much easier to abolish something you aren't profiting from. They had a difficult time abolishing it in the Caribbean and that was also fairly expensive. Abolition in the Colonies would be much, much more expensive and would be perceived as to threaten the textile industry in Britain.
You talk about Britain as if it was a single organism. There were two lobbies just as there was in the US. Those profiting from slavery wanted to keep it, others campaigned against it largely on moral grounds. No doubt Americans would have been divided along similar lines as they were a few decades later.
This is why I'm skeptical they would abolish it. Slavery was becoming less and less important to the British economy when it was peacefully abolished. In the US, slaveowners had vast political and economic clout. As a result, it was not peacefully abolished.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 11:56:28 PM
Colonies exist to service the mother country.
Says who? That wasn't historically the reason for the existence of colonies at all.
QuoteIt shouldn't be surprising that they are exploited or that colonists might feel they lack representation - as they often did...at least of an effective sort.
The colonists and their descendents didn't expect to be exploited the way they were, and they had been left with representation for many years. It is when the British started to abolish colonial political structures that the colonists rebelled.
QuoteSure, of course. But it this pub-esque gathering that we have, on the merits, I still don't see that I could objectively be in favor.
Okay. I can see that you cannot see.
QuoteSo slavery should be forgiven because at that time "all men are created equal" really only meant that some men were equals?
Nice straw man. Who is arguing that "slavery should be forgiven?"
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 07:47:18 AM
This is why I'm skeptical they would abolish it. Slavery was becoming less and less important to the British economy when it was peacefully abolished. In the US, slaveowners had vast political and economic clout. As a result, it was not peacefully abolished.
In the US, slaveowners had enormous political clout because of the structure of the senate created to give them that clout. Absent the senate, not so much clout at all.
Wait there are people who do not know the Pledge is a 20th century thing and think George Washington said it with his army or something?
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 08:42:57 AM
Wait there are people who do not know the Pledge is a 20th century thing and think George Washington said it with his army or something?
I thought it was a late 19th century thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 08:58:16 AM
I thought it was a late 19th century thing.
Oh for fuck sake.
Raz is: Shallow and Pedantic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPWQVGBVXKI&feature=related
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 08:42:57 AM
Wait there are people who do not know the Pledge is a 20th century thing and think George Washington said it with his army or something?
I don't think anyone but this Fox News woman believes that. She seems to have been tasked with creating a top-ten list where that was not possible, so started inventing things.
Now, I think it isn't widely known that this is the salute you are supposed to use with the pledge:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Farchive%2F7%2F73%2F20110124151620%21Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg&hash=8056f3e4f02858790af77083867d196452efd478)
That salute sure was popular around the world. Damn, nazis, ruined everything.
I'm pretty sure that it's possible to come up with 10 little known facts about the American Revolution that are in fact true.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 09:32:58 AM
I'm pretty sure that it's possible to come up with 10 little known facts about the American Revolution that are in fact true.
Not if you are a moron, and that's the only type Fox News seems to hire.
No doubt that some of the Founding Fathers were somewhat hypocritical on the matter of slavery, but since it abolition of slavery wasn't an aim of the rebellion, that has nothing to do with whether or not it was justified.
I don't like this list of "10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence" and propose to start my own.
1. The original government of the US included provision for a poet laureate. However, this position was unfilled for a century because the public was scandalized by efforts of the first, a certain Mr. Limerik, who wrote only about life in his home on Nantucket.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2011, 09:32:58 AM
I'm pretty sure that it's possible to come up with 10 little known facts about the American Revolution that are in fact true.
Not if you are a moron, and that's the only type Fox News seems to hire.
I'm a moron and I bet I could.
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 10:24:20 AM
I don't like this list of "10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence" and propose to start my own.
1. The original government of the US included provision for a poet laureate. However, this position was unfilled for a century because the public was scandalized by efforts of the first, a certain Mr. Limerik, who wrote only about life in his home on Nantucket.
2. There used to be more cherry trees near the reflecting pond, but George Washington chopped them down. He confessed to the crime ("I can't tell a lie"), but was not punished. Festering resentment for this act would later lead Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2011, 10:01:32 AM
No doubt that some of the Founding Fathers were somewhat hypocritical on the matter of slavery, but since it abolition of slavery wasn't an aim of the rebellion, that has nothing to do with whether or not it was justified.
I think we all can agree with that.
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 10:35:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 10:24:20 AM
I don't like this list of "10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence" and propose to start my own.
1. The original government of the US included provision for a poet laureate. However, this position was unfilled for a century because the public was scandalized by efforts of the first, a certain Mr. Limerik, who wrote only about life in his home on Nantucket.
2. There used to be more cherry trees near the reflecting pond, but George Washington chopped them down. He confessed to the crime ("I can't tell a lie"), but was not punished. Festering resentment for this act would later lead Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.
I thought the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 06, 2011, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 10:35:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 10:24:20 AM
I don't like this list of "10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence" and propose to start my own.
1. The original government of the US included provision for a poet laureate. However, this position was unfilled for a century because the public was scandalized by efforts of the first, a certain Mr. Limerik, who wrote only about life in his home on Nantucket.
2. There used to be more cherry trees near the reflecting pond, but George Washington chopped them down. He confessed to the crime ("I can't tell a lie"), but was not punished. Festering resentment for this act would later lead Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.
I thought the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.
No, they attacked Pearl Harbour. Different place.
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:10:12 AM
No, they attacked Pearl Harbour. Different place.
:yes: At the mouth of the Pearl Riveur.
3. It's normal to grow hair "down there".
4. The White House takes it's name from John Hancock the White, the powerfull architect who designed & conjured it on July 4th 1778.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 06, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
4. The White House takes it's name from John Hancock the White, the powerfull architect who designed & conjured it on July 4th 1778.
5. He later went on to defeat King George III of Many Colours, securing American independence.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 06, 2011, 01:12:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 06, 2011, 12:14:42 PM
4. The White House takes it's name from John Hancock the White, the powerfull architect who designed & conjured it on July 4th 1778.
5. He later went on to defeat King George III of Many Colours, securing American independence.
6. The Revolution gained considerable propaganda value from claiming that the Hessian troops employed by the British as mercenaries were, in fact, orcs. This aroused the hatred of the colonists.
In reality, only some of them were.
:( Well, I though you had an interesting idea there, Malthus...
for about two posts! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 01:55:43 PM
:( Well, I though you had an interesting idea there, Malthus...
for about two posts! :lol:
It is hard work to come up with more silliness than Fox. :(
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 02:18:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 01:55:43 PM
:( Well, I though you had an interesting idea there, Malthus...
for about two posts! :lol:
It is hard work to come up with more silliness than Fox. :(
You don't have to, you can come up with plausible stuff.
Quote from: dps on July 05, 2011, 08:39:53 PM
I'm not sure why you'd have doubts about 3. I don't necessarily know that the info in 3 is 100% accurate, but the general thrust of it seems right.
The date of 1774. That people in their local assembly decided it would be a good thing to be independant before the Congress did, I think it's probably right. But as early as 1774, 90 counties declared themselves independant? It just seem a bit too much, given that as late as 1776, many Americans still hoped to solve their problems with England without going into rebellion.
Quote
5 is a matter of interpretation,
that's why I have doubts. Rejecting the King and embracing a Republic would be somewhat seen as radical in the time. In fact, just protesting the British parliament was seen as radical, given that the American patriots were branded as traitors by the motherland.
Quoteand 6 is definately technically correct, but it's just semantics, at least now--in casual modern usage, a "democracy" and a "republic" are the same thing, but they weren't in the 18 century. Don't see why you'd doubt it, though.
explain how they weren't the same.
Quote7? Who knows, really? Who cares?
That's why I have doubts... It's such a trivial fact, that it looks like some Tea Party mumbo jumbo...
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2011, 02:24:42 PM
explain how they weren't the same.
It was based on the classical education everybody was getting. A Democracy would be something based on ancient Athens. A Republic was something modelled on ancient Rome. The American revolutionaries chose the latter so we called it a Republic.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 12:09:37 AM
In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.
I wonder if the South would have seceded from the British Empire then...
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2011, 08:42:57 AM
Wait there are people who do not know the Pledge is a 20th century thing and think George Washington said it with his army or something?
:yes:
Same people who think the American flag was raised every day with the national anthem in 1776.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2011, 02:24:42 PM
explain how they weren't the same.
It was based on the classical education everybody was getting. A Democracy would be something based on ancient Athens. A Republic was something modelled on ancient Rome. The American revolutionaries chose the latter so we called it a Republic.
Ah, I can see, now. Thanks. Democracy was only for direct representation.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 02:30:15 PM
It was based on the classical education everybody was getting. A Democracy would be something based on ancient Athens. A Republic was something modelled on ancient Rome. The American revolutionaries chose the latter so we called it a Republic.
:huh: A republic is a state with a non-royal head of state. It doesn't have to be democratic. North Korea is a Republic. At the time of the founding of the US, the United Provinces was famously a republic, as was the Swiss Confederacy, Genoa, and Venice. You didn't call the US a republic because it was modeled on ancient Rome; you called it a republic because it
was a republic, just as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Genoa, and Venice were republics.
The Republic established by the Founding Fathers was a democratic type of republic. When Madison talks of the advantages of a republic over a democracy, he is careful to say "a pure democracy" the first few times he refers to democracies, before he shortens it to just democracy (having established what he refers to).
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2011, 02:37:29 PM
Ah, I can see, now. Thanks. Democracy was only for direct representation.
Montesquieu was widely read on the subject, and his definition of a democracy certainly would have included the US at its founding. In American political writings of the time,
The Spirit of the Laws was cited more than any work bar the bible. Montesquieu considered classical Athens to be a republic (he saw only three types of governments: Monarchies, republics, and despotisms).
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 02:44:06 PM
The Republic established by the Founding Fathers was a democratic type of republic. When Madison talks of the advantages of a republic over a democracy, he is careful to say "a pure democracy" the first few times he refers to democracies, before he shortens it to just democracy (having established what he refers to).
Madison also wrote under the name 'Publius' and not 'Cleisthenes' and he heavily draws on classical examples. I am well aware that the definitions of 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are different today. I was discussing how they were viewed at the time.
I was under the impression that the term "Democracy" had negative connotations at the time of the American Revolution. At least amongst the Federalists.
I think a genuine lesser known fact about the American Revolution is that the not all the states had universal manhood suffrage. I'm not talking about slaves not getting to vote, but ordinary white men. Didn't know that property restrictions remained in many states well in the 19th century until I was in college.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 02:56:10 PM
Madison also wrote under the name 'Publius' and not 'Cleisthenes' and he heavily draws on classical examples. I am well aware that the definitions of 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are different today. I was discussing how they were viewed at the time.
I was, as well. Madison was of that time.
We could take, for example, The Federalist #10 as an example, because there Madison compares a pure democracy with a republic:
QuoteFrom this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
(my bold)
Now, the last sentence is the one often quoted to show that the US isn't a democracy, but in context we can see that Madison isn't referring to all democracies, but a particular form of democracy called by him "pure democracy," and that the type of republic he is referring to isn't all republics, but rather those republics in which there is a form of representation. The latter definition is now the only one, but in Madison's time a republic was a non-monarchical non-despotism. The Swiss had a republic in which they excercised almost pure democracy, for instance, and Madison had to show that this was not what he was referring to.
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2011, 02:24:42 PM
Quote from: dps on July 05, 2011, 08:39:53 PM
I'm not sure why you'd have doubts about 3. I don't necessarily know that the info in 3 is 100% accurate, but the general thrust of it seems right.
The date of 1774. That people in their local assembly decided it would be a good thing to be independant before the Congress did, I think it's probably right. But as early as 1774, 90 counties declared themselves independant? It just seem a bit too much, given that as late as 1776, many Americans still hoped to solve their problems with England without going into rebellion.
That's why I said I wasn't sure the info was 100% accurate, but the general thrust of it was correct. I don't know where the figure of 90 comes from. Note though, that "local" would include individual citites, towns, and villages, not just states and counties, so there well might have been 90 or more. Also, what the article doesn't say is that most (perhaps all, I'm not sure) of those local declarations of independence didn't actually proclaim independence
per se--they were essentiall petitions to the Continental Congress calling on Congress to declare independence.
Whatever the number, I bet most of them were from New England.
QuoteQuote
5 is a matter of interpretation,
that's why I have doubts. Rejecting the King and embracing a Republic would be somewhat seen as radical in the time. In fact, just protesting the British parliament was seen as radical, given that the American patriots were branded as traitors by the motherland.
True, but they weren't seeking to change the social or economic order, in the main. They were just wanting to change the political structure. And even there, in a sense they were not only not radical, but reactionary. Remember, the British government hadn't really concerned itself with administering the colonies; they had been used to pretty much running their own affairs until the British government began to take a more active interest in the colonies after the French and Indian war, and many colonial leaders as much as anything else just wanted to go back to the
status quo ante.
Grumbler has already covered the democracy question, and the other one isn't worth wasting any more time on.
But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2011, 07:14:21 PM
But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.
A good example, actually, though. Before the French and Indian War, the British government didn't really do anything to try to check westward expansion--the barriers were the practical problems of exploring the wilderness and dealing with the natives and French explorers and traders, not legal barriers erected by the government. After the war, the practical barriers were much reduced, but the British had put up legal barriers.
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2011, 07:29:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2011, 07:14:21 PM
But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.
A good example, actually, though. Before the French and Indian War, the British government didn't really do anything to try to check westward expansion--the barriers were the practical problems of exploring the wilderness and dealing with the natives and French explorers and traders, not legal barriers erected by the government. After the war, the practical barriers were much reduced, but the British had put up legal barriers.
Yeah. Britain started treating the natives like countries, whereas the colonies were determined to slaughter them.
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2011, 07:34:52 PM
Yeah. Britain started treating the natives like countries, whereas the colonies were determined to slaughter them.
Yeah, the British were a silly and naive people, for sure.
They got over it. :bowler:
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2011, 06:35:20 PM
Also, what the article doesn't say is that most (perhaps all, I'm not sure) of those local declarations of independence didn't actually proclaim independence per se--they were essentiall petitions to the Continental Congress calling on Congress to declare independence.
that does make more sense than the article.
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2011, 07:34:52 PM
Quote from: dps on July 07, 2011, 07:29:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 07, 2011, 07:14:21 PM
But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.
A good example, actually, though. Before the French and Indian War, the British government didn't really do anything to try to check westward expansion--the barriers were the practical problems of exploring the wilderness and dealing with the natives and French explorers and traders, not legal barriers erected by the government. After the war, the practical barriers were much reduced, but the British had put up legal barriers.
Yeah. Britain started treating the natives like countries, whereas the colonies were determined to slaughter them.
That would explain all those Native American Nations throughout what we mistakenly call Canada.