The Fourth of July does Not mark the date of Independence [ When will we be able to afford space settlement?]

From stmx3:
(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:
(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

In article ,
wrote:


(Snipped more shallow political meanderings)

Changed your ID to avoid killfiles? Seems "oppressive" to me.

PLONK to you and your new 'nym.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On 31 May 2004 00:12:13 -0700, wrote:

It's not too hard to imagine Lee's resolution getting scrapped with
more than a few delegates begging to keep their monarchy!

....Well, well, well. The Conspiracy Troll has changed his e-mail
headers again in yet another attempt to get out of Killfile Hell.

PLONK

....Begone, you worthless sack of inhuman anal excrement. You are *NOT*
wanted here. Ever.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Stuf4 wrote:
Along with this House of Hanover connection, Hitler was surely aware
that the British term "Anglo-Saxon" points to "Germanic-Germanic"
roots that run even deeper. A further point of irony is that the
Horsa Glider used by Britain to invade Nazi Germany was named after
the chieftain from ancient British history. Why is this ironic?

Horsa was Germanic.

....more specifically, Horsa was the leader of the original Germanic
attacks that eventually subdued the Britons.

Bringing this story full circle, when Thomas Jefferson was asked to
design a seal for his new country, guess who he put on it?

Horsa.

As heavily as Jefferson borrowed from Locke, Montesquieu, etc in his
drafting of the Declaration of Independence, it was Germanic chieftains
who he chose for the great seal of the United States. According to
John Adams, Jefferson's reason was because Horsa was responsible for
bringing common law to England, and in turn to the United States.

As recorded in one of Adams' letters:

"I am put upon a Committee to prepare...Devices for a Great Seal...
Mr. Jefferson proposed. The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led
by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side
Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of
being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government
We have assumed."

(http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams...id=L17760814ja)


So one Germanic conqueror gets honored. A subsequent Germanic
conqueror gets branded as evil. It would be intriguing to speculate on
what historians would have made of Adolf Hitler if the Nazis had won.

....conversely, what historians would have made of American history if
the rebellion had been put down. Imagine American money featuring the
portrait of Germanic George the 3rd instead of that other George. Is
it possible that Washington would have been vilified? With, say,
stories of some kind of colonial Abu Ghraib making the headlines.

To see how reputations are easily turned, consider the excellent case
of Benedict Arnold. He came very close to becoming an American war
hero. But today his name is a synonym for -traitor-.

Had Benedict's gamble paid off, we could imagine that the "Declaration
of Independence" would be presented in today's history books in a
chapter titled:

High Treason.


~ CT

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


(Snipped more shallow political meanderings)

Changed your ID to avoid killfiles? Seems "oppressive" to me.

PLONK to you and your new 'nym.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
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

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote
Stuffie has difficulty grasping the notion that tradition might
play a
role in how a government is organized, and that consequently the
written
documents might not tell the whole story.

(This alludes to a position that Canada's independence is uncodified.)

Stuffie has difficulty grasping *any* notion.

I stated that the Queen of England has authority over Canada. Neil
pipes in with a rebuttal:

- No she doesn't.
- The Queen of _Canada_ has authority over Canada.
- (by the way, the Queen of Canada and the Queen of England
happen to be one and the same person)

....and this forum concludes that I am the one having difficulty
grasping notions.


~ CT

In article ,
Stuf4 wrote:

- The Queen of _Canada_ has authority over Canada.
- (by the way, the Queen of Canada and the Queen of England
happen to be one and the same person)

Of course she does ... and of course she is the same person.

The Constitution Act (1867) (formerly the British North America
Act), is an act of the UK parliment. See:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html Section 9 says:

"9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. "

So it can only the same Queen (or her lawful heirs and sucessors, under
British law).

.... it would take a Constitutional lawyer to draw the line between
where the Queen's real powers begin, and end; no monarch has tried
to directly interfere in the Canadian government since before 1867, and
the last time the Governor-General interfered was 1926, if I recall
correctly. But that doesn't mean there isn't real power. Take
Section 16 for example:

"Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.". That's pretty clear and unequivocal, however, it would be interesting
to see what would happen if she ever did, one day, decide to move
the capital to Iqaluit.

Nick
"

Nicholas Fitzpatrick wrote:
In article ,
Stuf4 wrote:

- The Queen of _Canada_ has authority over Canada.
- (by the way, the Queen of Canada and the Queen of England
happen to be one and the same person)

Of course she does ... and of course she is the same person.

The Constitution Act (1867) (formerly the British North America
Act), is an act of the UK parliment. See:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html Section 9 says:

"9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is
hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. "

So it can only the same Queen (or her lawful heirs and sucessors,
under
British law).

... it would take a Constitutional lawyer to draw the line between
where the Queen's real powers begin, and end; no monarch has tried
to directly interfere in the Canadian government since before 1867,
and
the last time the Governor-General interfered was 1926, if I recall
correctly.

I'm not sure what you mean by interference, but an interesting fact is
that no monarch *stepped foot* on Canadian soil until 1939. (That's
even counting the kings of New France.)

But that doesn't mean there isn't real power. Take
Section 16 for example:

"Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada
shall be Ottawa.". That's pretty clear and unequivocal, however, it
would be interesting
to see what would happen if she ever did, one day, decide to move
the capital to Iqaluit.

If Canadians were to defy their Queen, that would be the makings for...
The Canadian Revolution!


~ CT

In article ,
Stuf4 wrote:

the last time the Governor-General interfered was 1926, if I recall
correctly.

I'm not sure what you mean by interference

The Byng-King affair of course. The scandal-ridden Liberal
government lost the 1925 election, but refused to give up power. They
attempted to carry on as a minority government (as no party had a
clear majority), however in 1926 they lost some votes of confidence
in parliment, and asked the Governor-General (who represents the Queen)
to call an election. In an unprecedented move, the Governor-General
refused, and asked the leader of the opposition to form a government.
Which should have been the right move, however the new Conservative
government fell within the week (and an election was called). There
is some information about this, in Lord Byng's bio on the Governer-
General's website:
http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/hi...ios/byng_e.asp

, but an interesting fact is
that no monarch *stepped foot* on Canadian soil until 1939. (That's
even counting the kings of New France.)

Ah, but, at least one King visited while he was Prince of Wales.
Edward VIII (later known as the Duke of Windsor) visited Canada
many times in the 1920's and 1930's; in fact he had an estate
in Alberta, I think. I have a funny feeling that Edward the VII or
George V were here sometime in the 19th century too ... but I don't
have a reference at hand.

"Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada
shall be Ottawa.". That's pretty clear and unequivocal, however, it
would be interesting
to see what would happen if she ever did, one day, decide to move
the capital to Iqaluit.

If Canadians were to defy their Queen, that would be the makings for...
The Canadian Revolution!

If the Queen were to defy the will of Canadians, she would likely
be removed pretty quickly (though the 1982 amending formula, does
require the approval of all 10 provinces to do so ... which would
be a unique event!).

Nick