 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / May 2004Re: The Fourth of July does Not mark the date of Independence [re: When will we be able to afford space settlement?]
>From stmx3: > tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote > > > (As noted in the first post, New York's vote for independence happened > > in Manhattan on July 9th.) > > > > > June 10, 1776: After the initial shock, a special committee was > > > appointed to draft the actual declaration, with the first vote > > > set/delayed until July 1. > > > > The words of Lee's resolution would certainly cause a shock, but they > > did not come as a total surprise considering that it followed North > > Carolina's Halifax Resolution of two months prior and Rhode Island's > > outright Renunciation of Allegiance from one month prior. > > I don't believe Lee's resolution caused a shock. I think everyone > realized that sooner or later it was bound to happen. After all, the > Continental Congress was formed to redress the perceived wrongdoings > of Great Britain. The biggest shock I was imagining was from the recognition that signing up to American independence could very well amount to signing their own death warrant. > At the outset, some advocated war (see, for > example, the Suffolk Resolves of 1774...which preceded the Halifax > Resolves by a year and a half), and some advocated a political > solution (see, for example, the Galloway Plan, Sept. 28, 1774--note > Galloway makes a very intelligible argument for a rational approach, > one which I think you, especially, would find interesting...see > http://tinyurl.com/2cyjh) Galloway's proposal seems to have a lot in common with Franklin's proposal from Albany. Parliament could certainly have done more to appease the colonies, along the lines of what it had done for Canadians with the Quebec Act. > > > July 3rd-4th, 1776: The DoI goes through a revision process in which > > > certain passages are either clarified, "politically corrected", or > > > outright eliminated. Most notably the elimination of an anti-slavery > > > clause. > > > > We can guess that those involved with that heated debate could forsee > > that the slavery compromise was going to serve to prolong that aspect > > of the revolution. > > > > (Imagine one of them offering a prediction that it would happen in two > > stages, each a century apart!) > > No need to imagine it. It was predicted by George Washington and > Thomas Jefferson. And I think it was Washington who also predicted > the unfortunate fate of the Indians, as well. I'll see if I can find > the references. That would make for an amazing prediction. > > This is the biggest significance of the July 2nd / July 4th split: > > > > The Fourth of July holiday commemorates the time when the founding > > fathers *almost* established the land of the free. > > July 4th commemorates the date we declared independence from the > mother country by adopting the declaration in Congress. As for > slavery, you know as well as I that there would be no union without > this despicable compromise. And there could be no independence > without union. It was even necessary to add a clause in the > constitution to assuage southern states by making the subject of > slavery untouchable for something like 20 years. It is tragic when politics becomes the art of selling your soul. > It is interesting to read early speeches and resolutions against Great > Britain, particularly when they speak about how the colonists will all > become slaves of England if they don't stand up for themselves. > History shows that the colonists did stand up for themselves. An interesting work of fiction would be to place a crystal ball in Independence Hall so the founding fathers could look into the future to see the monstrosity of government that the United States of America would grow into... It's not too hard to imagine Lee's resolution getting scrapped with more than a few delegates begging to keep their monarchy! ~ CT >From stmx3: > tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com (Stuf4) wrote > > > (As noted in the first post, New York's vote for independence happened > > in Manhattan on July 9th.) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > The words of Lee's resolution would certainly cause a shock, but they > > did not come as a total surprise considering that it followed North > > Carolina's Halifax Resolution of two months prior and Rhode Island's > > outright Renunciation of Allegiance from one month prior. > > I don't believe Lee's resolution caused a shock. I think everyone > realized that sooner or later it was bound to happen. After all, the > Continental Congress was formed to redress the perceived wrongdoings > of Great Britain. The biggest shock I was imagining was from the recognition that signing up to American independence could very well amount to signing their own death warrant. > At the outset, some advocated war (see, for > example, the Suffolk Resolves of 1774...which preceded the Halifax [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one which I think you, especially, would find interesting...see > http://tinyurl.com/2cyjh) Galloway's proposal seems to have a lot in common with Franklin's proposal from Albany. Parliament could certainly have done more to appease the colonies, along the lines of what it had done for Canadians with the Quebec Act. > > > July 3rd-4th, 1776: The DoI goes through a revision process in which > > > certain passages are either clarified, "politically corrected", or > > > outright eliminated. Most notably the elimination of an anti-slavery > > > clause. > > > > We can guess that those involved with that heated debate could forsee > > that the slavery compromise was going to serve to prolong that aspect > > of the revolution. > > > > (Imagine one of them offering a prediction that it would happen in two > > stages, each a century apart!) > > No need to imagine it. It was predicted by George Washington and > Thomas Jefferson. And I think it was Washington who also predicted > the unfortunate fate of the Indians, as well. I'll see if I can find > the references. That would make for an amazing prediction. > > This is the biggest significance of the July 2nd / July 4th split: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > constitution to assuage southern states by making the subject of > slavery untouchable for something like 20 years. It is tragic when politics becomes the art of selling your soul. > It is interesting to read early speeches and resolutions against Great > Britain, particularly when they speak about how the colonists will all > become slaves of England if they don't stand up for themselves. > History shows that the colonists did stand up for themselves. An interesting work of fiction would be to place a crystal ball in Independence Hall so the founding fathers could look into the future to see the monstrosity of government that the United States of America would grow into... It's not too hard to imagine Lee's resolution getting scrapped with more than a few delegates begging to keep their monarchy! ~ CT (Snipped more shallow political meanderings) Changed your ID to avoid killfiles? Seems "oppressive" to me. <PLONK> to you and your new 'nym.  SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> Herb Schaltegger wrote: > In article <c9elbc$mos@odbk17.prod.google.com>, > tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Columbia Loss FAQ: > <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> One of the concerns that the founding fathers had about setting up a democracy was that mobs have a tendency to act emotionally instead of rationally. I am glad that Usenet is founded upon an architecture of freedom, where minority opinions cannot be silenced. There is a story about three people living under a democracy, two are blind, the other perfectly healthy. The blind members want to take one eye each from the one who can see. The vote passes: 2-1. Usenet becomes abUsenet when the focus is turned toward poking out someone's eyes. Please use killfiles, or whatever means you deem necessary to exercise self control. But there is no need to *advertise* the use of a killfile. ~ CT tad danley wrote: > Henry Spencer wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> > >>No, she doesn't. The Queen of Canada is chief executive of Canada, but only > >>when she's in Canada... > > > > Moreover, even then her role -- in Canada as in England -- is purely > > ceremonial. In principle she is the boss, but in practice she has no say > > in anything; her speeches are mostly written by, and all approved by, the > > elected politicians. > > The Queen reigns but does not rule. As the situation stands today, the Queen of England (/Canada) has the authority to entirely disband Canadian Parliament. All of the members of Parliament sit at her pleasure, as evidenced by their oath: "...I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors." While there have been singular acts of defiance in swearing allegiance to "Canada" instead of Liz, those have been isolated events. And I'm not aware of any members of Canadian Parliament who have publicly renounced their allegiance to Elizabeth. I expect that such words would get them a boot out the door. Eugene Bellemare and Pierre Vincent may be radical by Canadian standards, but that's not exactly "Patrick Henry". ~ CT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.