USA - Good - Bad and or the Ugly

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I hope it will survive - too many depend upon its survival. Personally I will always be grateful the frightening tradition of "royal" has never been introduced...therefore allowing simple countrymen and women to become royal in their own rights.

In what way do we not have the tradition of ‘Royal’? we acknowledge the authority of the monarch here in Canada. Our biggest (and incidentally, also the most efficient) bank is the Royal Bank. We do have the tradition of ‘Royal’ in this country. Or are you an American (if you are, I wasn’t aware of that).
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Curosity -What a wonderful document of freedom and rights this is - There are other great historical documents that were printed prior to this and after - But how many can compare to the simplicity and complexity of this.

.Declaration of Independence


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776.
THE UNANIMOUS
DECLARATION
OF THE
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath 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 Accommodations 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 Tyranny only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the mean Time, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
HE has 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 Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone; for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a 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 into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection, and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to 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 Insurrection amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.
IN every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them, from Time to Time, of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the Rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by 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.
John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr. Thomas Lynch, junr. Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, &c. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.
IN CONGRESS, JANUARY 18, 1777.
ORDERED,
THAT an authenticated Copy of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCY, with the Names of the MEMBERS of CONGRESS, subscribing the same, be sent to each of the UNITED STATES, and that they be desired to have the same put on RECORD.
By Order of CONGRESS,
JOHN HANCOCK, President.
BALTIMORE, in MARYLAND: Printed by MARY KATHARINE GODDARD.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I get the last word tonight.:smile:

Without an absolute moral law, and a moral law giver, the forefathers would have had no justification for their moral outrage towards England. It would have been mere opinion and therefore worthless. Because a moral standard exists however, they had a legitimate claim.
Obviously the morals of England and those of the States were not the same, otherwise they wouldn't have had a tiff.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Obviously the morals of England and those of the States were not the same, otherwise they wouldn't have had a tiff.
Anna GThe 1st settlers from Britain were looking for religious freedom - Calvinist- Baptists - etc - so yes there was a large disconnect from Britain - time - distance - and the belief that the settlers had for a new beginning - a fresh start -
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Anna GThe 1st settlers from Britain were looking for religious freedom - Calvinist- Baptists - etc - so yes there was a large disconnect from Britain - time - distance - and the belief that the settlers had for a new beginning - a fresh start -


No doubt that is how it started, Goober. Unfortunately, in USA the settlers became even more intolerant, more bigoted that their counterparts in Britain, they gave us the Salem Witch Hunts.

Also, the same settlers which supposedly scorned the ways of Britain, these same people wouldn’t abolish the slavery, they had to fight a civil war over it (Britain abolished it without any fanfare). And I won’t even touch on their shabby treatment of Indians.

So no doubt they came to USA to except persecution, but they on their own launched even a bigger, nastier persecution.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Anna GThe 1st settlers from Britain were looking for religious freedom - Calvinist- Baptists - etc - so yes there was a large disconnect from Britain - time - distance - and the belief that the settlers had for a new beginning - a fresh start -
Exactly. They didn't like the morals and other things that England offered, so they moved and started their own country where they could design things the way they wanted..
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
No doubt that is how it started, Goober. Unfortunately, in USA the settlers became even more intolerant, more bigoted that their counterparts in Britain, they gave us the Salem Witch Hunts.

Also, the same settlers which supposedly scorned the ways of Britain, these same people wouldn’t abolish the slavery, they had to fight a civil war over it (Britain abolished it without any fanfare). And I won’t even touch on their shabby treatment of Indians.

So no doubt they came to USA to except persecution, but they on their own launched even a bigger, nastier persecution.
SJPBest read up on the Terror Tactics the Brits and Settlers used with the Native Americans - also note the difference between how the French worked with the NA - Also refresh your history on the tactics of instilling terror on the colonials by Brit Troops - Hessians -
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
SJPBest read up on the Terror Tactics the Brits and Settlers used with the Native Americans - also note the difference between how the French worked with the NA - Also refresh your history on the tactics of instilling terror on the colonials by Brit Troops - Hessians -
Good point, Goober. Seems to me that the English were pretty damned cruel and intolerant when they wanted to be.
Try "Eyewitness to History" by John Carey. Or "Great Tales from English History" by Robert Lacey. I haven't read much of them; too brutal for me, but it has some eye-openers alright.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
In what way do we not have the tradition of ‘Royal’? we acknowledge the authority of the monarch here in Canada. Our biggest (and incidentally, also the most efficient) bank is the Royal Bank. We do have the tradition of ‘Royal’ in this country. Or are you an American (if you are, I wasn’t aware of that).

Sorry SirJoseph

I was writing about the nation of the United States - not Canada. I thought I had been clear in my post earlier up the page that I have lived half my life in Canada - was born there and emigrated to the USA to go to school in my 20s. I became a
citizen a few years ago and began reading political forums to learn where I stood politically for I had never given the politics down here any thought.

Even now as I have comitted myself, I am not certain I still have those earlier opinions of my philosophy - since the last election. No doubt I'll make many more errors before I stop voting entirely at life's end.

I appreciate you took the time to point out the Royal in Canadian Culture... my mother was from England although her family were French, and she adored the British Royal family. I simply did not share her preference as I grew into adulthood, perhaps a different outlook that I preferred to think all people were equal. But there is no right or wrong - it is an individual choice. I do not intend to make it one.
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Dear Goober


Curosity -What a wonderful document of freedom and rights this is - There are other great historical documents that were printed prior to this and after - But how many can compare to the simplicity and complexity of this.

.Declaration of Independence...



Thank you for printing it out - the first time I read it - it simply fit me.... nothing spectacular except I was moved by it..... somehow it seemed right for my ideals
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Good point, Goober. Seems to me that the English were pretty damned cruel and intolerant when they wanted to be.
Try "Eyewitness to History" by John Carey. Or "Great Tales from English History" by Robert Lacey. I haven't read much of them; too brutal for me, but it has some eye-openers alright.
Anna G

Love to read - I have a long list of books to read but I have been so busy the last few years - Hopefully get to spend time on the deck next summer reading -
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
SJPBest read up on the Terror Tactics the Brits and Settlers used with the Native Americans - also note the difference between how the French worked with the NA - Also refresh your history on the tactics of instilling terror on the colonials by Brit Troops - Hessians -


I did not say that British soldiers were any better, Goober. I was simply commenting on the settlers and their persecution of others, even though they left Britain to escape persecution. Treatment of Indians is a different and a very big subject.

I was simply mentioned the treatment of Indians by the settlers, I did not say anything about the British. Whatever the culpability on the part of the British, that does not let the settlers off the hook.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Curiosity, I am ambivalent about the monarchy. If we didn’t have the monarchy, I would be opposed to its introduction in Canada. But now that we already have it, I favor keeping it, at least until we can agree on an alternative (and that seems highly unlikely).
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
What has the United States done that is good? Well, for one thing they are usually the first country to respond to another's disaster. From tsunamis to earthquakes, they are there with on-the-ground help, food, shelter, water, medical aid - you name it.
In my books, that is a good thing.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I did not say that British soldiers were any better, Goober. I was simply commenting on the settlers and their persecution of others, even though they left Britain to escape persecution. Treatment of Indians is a different and a very big subject.

I was simply mentioned the treatment of Indians by the settlers, I did not say anything about the British. Whatever the culpability on the part of the British, that does not let the settlers off the hook.
Re read my post - I said Brit and Settlers - they worked hand in hand - check the history.

I Posted it again.

Best read up on the Terror Tactics the Brits and Settlers used with the Native Americans - also note the difference between how the French worked with the NA - Also refresh your history on the tactics of instilling terror on the colonials by Brit Troops - Hessians -
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Re read my post - I said Brit and Settlers - they worked hand in hand - check the history.

I Posted it again.

Best read up on the Terror Tactics the Brits and Settlers used with the Native Americans - also note the difference between how the French worked with the NA - Also refresh your history on the tactics of instilling terror on the colonials by Brit Troops - Hessians -

Again, what does it have to do with anything I posted? I never said that the British were squeaky clean.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Again, what does it have to do with anything I posted? I never said that the British were squeaky clean.
SJPI never even implied that it let the settlers of the hook - You took it and went after the settlers - please realize that they both are guilty - Brits and settlers - and from that the history or actions that took place occurred. Also note how the French worked with the NA - What a difference - read about the early Indian Wars and how the French used the NA - Time to brush up - and I Ain't talking teeth.