American Revolution

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1891044' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:56 PM']At least I never have. [/quote]

You should. It's a great song.

I have a question for anyone who has gone to an EF in Canada or Australia. Is the prayer for the queen prayed after High Mass in those countries?

Edited June 15, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Gregorius]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1890720' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:23 PM']The Colonial decision-makers (only about 1/3rd of the population was pro-Revolutionary) were simply (initially) insisting on being granted the "Rights of Englishmen". IOW, to be treated like the folks back home in Britain. Had George III been given accurate info by His Government (it's though he was given a false impression of what the Colonials were saying about him), and given the Colonies a few seats in Parliament (or a Parliament of their own), we'd all be singing "God Save The Queen" at the start of every Saturday Cricket match.[/quote]

Agreed.

Even at the start of the fighting, General Washington and his officers were raising their glasses in a toast to the King. So anyway, let's look at the requirements:
[quote name='CCC']Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:
1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights[/quote]

The Second Continental Congress write these grievances:
[quote name='Declaration of Independence']1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good
2. 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.
3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
4. 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.
5. He has dissolved Repres^[en]tative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
6. 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.
7. He has endeavoured 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.
8. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
9. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
10. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance
11. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
12. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
13. 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:
14. 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:
15. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
16. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
17. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
18. For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring 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:
19. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
20. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
21. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
22. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people
23. 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 & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
24. 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
25. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured 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.[/quote]
For those that don't want to read that above, they are saying that 1) The King was robbing us of our representation and not passing the laws that we wanted to pass in order to protect our own interests as Englishmen, 2) The King would not let us move west of the Appalachian mountains after working so hard to take the land from the French in the French and Indian War/Seven Years War, 3) He is not serving justice by blocking the judicial processes, 4) He is taxing the hell out of us, though notably the taxes were less for us than the actual English, 5) robbing us of privacy by keeping the soldiers here instead of sending them home 6) Took away our historical self-rule, choosing instead to try and dominate us and ruling us by foreigners 7) And going to war against us, using Mercenaries (That's the word the document used, no matter if George III of Hanover owned lands there, they were most certainly not Englishmen, thus foreign).
Though technically as colonies The King could do as he wished, in reality he was using us as economic tools to pay off his debts, to the point of exploiting us, i.e. in modern terms, a violation of the dignity of the human person. And as this period ranged from about 1753 to 1776(or 1783, when the war ended), I'd say 1 is fulfilled.

[quote name='CCC']2) all other means of redress have been exhausted[/quote]
The colonists for a period of time had been trying peacefully to exercise their right to petition the King, see my first comment and this quote:
[quote name='Declaration of Independence']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.[/quote]
Seems fair from our side. George choose subordination and lost 13 colonies, though he was not really a bad man.
[quote name='CCC']3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders.[/quote]
What was virtually another world war probably is a worse disorder than taking it day after day from the British, but an extremely long war was not something either side planned for. Both sides thought it would be over quickly, either the Americans getting their rights back, or the British formally telling the Americans to shut up and sit down. Intention also counts, so I'll say yes here.
[quote name='CCC']4) there is well-founded hope of success[/quote]
I doubt America would have done what they have done if they thought it wasn't going to work....
[quote name='CCC']5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.[/quote]
5 seems to go with 3, Apparently the Americans already tried other methods without success, and resorted to arms as a last resort.

Other arguments aside, this was just a long-winded way of saying I voted yes!

[Gregorius]

Note historically speaking, though the country was mostly protestant, American Catholics also supported the struggle, though I don't know if the Papal States agreed with it. Charles Carroll of Carrollton was a Catholic and a signer of the declaration of independence, and his brotherly relation, John Carroll, was the first Bishop of Baltimore and of all the United States (and he was elected at a church nearby where I live!)

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Yay Republic! [img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o285/EldritchLord1/cheer.gif[/img]

[FSM Sister]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1885379' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:51 AM']Prolly not.

Although I'm glad it happened.[/quote]

I'm sure you meant to say "probably." (Sorry - it's the teacher in me!)

[Resurrexi]

Independence Day approaches.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1891568' date='Jun 15 2009, 10:56 PM']You should. It's a great song.

I have a question for anyone who has gone to an EF in Canada or Australia. Is the prayer for the queen prayed after High Mass in those countries?[/quote]



We do. Although it's a different queen

[dairygirl4u2c]

in reference to subpoints long ago-- i'd contend strongly, that there's not just a legal right, but a divine, God given right-- to speak lies and errors. even if ya know they're wrong. (in a general sense, not fraud etc)

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='picchick' post='1885377' date='Jun 7 2009, 01:50 AM']1) There were fundamental rights that were being violated.
2) I am pretty sure we told the King a couple times over to knock it off
3) I do not know what they would constitute as worse disorders
4) Yeah we were pretty sucessful. However, I am not sure how sure anyone is of success when they are battling a seemingly giant
5) Goes with 2.

I voted Yes[/quote]
that sounds about the same as what i was thinking when i read the requirements

[Gregorius]

"To our country, in her dealings with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong."
Who said this?

[Guest tabarnak9]

As a hoosier who loves the history of his state, prior to the revolution, Indiana was suppose to be under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

Now what does this mean? It meant that the language of Indiana and it's surronding areas where supposed to be French and the religion was supposed to be Catholic. Refer to the Quebec Act which is considered to be one of the "Intolerable Acts."

Now Lower Canada, Present Day Quebec, did not want to join the American Colonists because of the fact that they knew where they stood with the British. With the British, French Canadians enjoyed the protection of their culture and the protection of the Catholic Faith. With the Revolutionaries, the French Canadians did not know what future awaited them. So, they decided to stay with a sure thing which was to fight on the side of the British against the colonists.

The French at Vincennes Indiana sided with the American Colonist. They were promised by the American Colonists that they could keep their culture, language, and most importantly their catholic faith.

Well, What happened? The eradication of the French language, followed by the eradication of the German Language about 125 years later.

And guess what else happened? The persecution of Catholic Priests in Indiana.
[url="http://web.usi.edu/boneyard/mccutc65.htm"]http://web.usi.edu/boneyard/mccutc65.htm[/url]

Well, had the Revolution not happened, the colonies would be in the same shape as Canada. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and all the other states around them would be primarily French-Speaking. The French were the only European Group that actually got along with the Indians. So, there probably would not have been a trail of tears.

Granted, they won't teach that in a History Course in Amerika.

After all, Even after our white house and Washington DC was burned to the ground by British and Canadian forces in the war of 1812, Americans are still taught that they won the war of 1812.

Yet if you cross the Ambassador's bridge in Detroit Michigan to Windsor Ontario, you get a completely different story of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812.

So, simple answer,

Cultures and Languages were eradicated after the revolutions end. And no tolerance was given to Catholics in the frontier.

We got our American Melting pot from this revolution,

but the Canadian Mosaic, honestly, is much better.

[CatherineM]

My French Huguenot ancestors fought on the American side of the Revolution. Not all French were on the Quebec side.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1915547' date='Jul 9 2009, 11:08 AM']My French Huguenot ancestors fought on the American side of the Revolution. Not all French were on the Quebec side.[/quote]

My French ancestors may have been fighting your French ancestors. lol
My Great Grandfather is from Quebec.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1918053' date='Jul 12 2009, 03:48 PM']My French ancestors may have been fighting your French ancestors. lol
My Great Grandfather is from Quebec.[/quote]

My ancestors have a habit of being on both sides. North and South, York and Lancaster, Norman and Anglo-Saxon. My mom said that her grandfather talked about having both Union and Confederacy uniforms in the closet depending on which side was in the area.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='14 June 2009 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1245023353' post='1890618']
Great post. "The separatists have forgotten what they are separating for" is something I've found out too. I've been to Quebec, and I've heard stories of the faith being abandoned, and I hear of their cries for preserving what is French while they let their populations shrink because they don't care what the church says about relationships and having kids, etc.

[/quote]
*blush*

Its getting to a sad state really. The Quebeckers have become so self-absorbed that they genuinely expect others to come over, learn french and keep their traditions alive for them since of course they don't bother to have kids.

Oh ma patrie, comme je pleure sans cesse pour elle.


But I have noticed a certain revival in the coming generation however. They seem to understand differently and notice the follies of their forefathers. However, they are coming dangerously close to others things. Anti-immigration, racism, and sheer hatred is brewing in Quebec; some have even started, although in half-jest, talking about a civil war to reverse the effects of immigration. Doesn't sound fun at all! (and if you knowthe french, you know just how bloody we can be - we have quite a history of being passionate and taking things to the uttermost extremes!)







[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='14 June 2009 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1245037325' post='1891016']
Canadians rarely, if ever, sing God Save the Queen anymore.

Just sayin'.


[/quote]


I don't even know the words, and if anything 62% of frenchmen (and 59% opf frenchwomen) sing God shave the queen if anything at all.