July 4: Condemnation of Every Other Kind Government That Ever Existed Or Ever Will

[Osborne Russell]

. . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. <-- period

[Gerarddm]

I must be getting senile, as the OP title seems to contradict the body sentence.

[Osborne Russell]

Oops, it should say "every other kind OF government

[bob winter]

Fails to make any sense to me.

[Waddie]

heat stroke......

regards,
Waddie

[Osborne Russell]

Over the years many things have been cited as supporting the legitimacy of governments:

-- God/the Gods
-- tradition
-- inertia
-- biology (e.g. the Master Race)
-- metaphysics (e.g. dialectical materialism)


All of them are condemned in the Declaration of Independence. Consent of the governed, period. The most important punctuation mark in history.

[Glen Longino]

I understand what you're saying, Osborne!
Scary, ain't it?

[elf]

Well, I certainly would prefer not to be governed by the current crop of Regressives. So I will be asserting my right to assent to the kind of government I would prefer by visiting the ballot box in my locale in November.

[Osborne Russell]

I understand what you're saying, Osborne!
Scary, ain't it?

Yep. It's the cornerstone of the American Revolution, as distinguished from the War of Independence.

Most Americans are uncomfortable with being so categorical about it, because they haven't thought it through. That means they're not really Americans.

People in other countries are understandably uneasy. Does it imply criticism of their government? Isn't that somewhat presumptuous?

This uneasiness is a good thing. Whatever may be their criticism of the principle, let's get it out in the open.

Better than stuffing your belly on Independence Day and barfing up a lot of barf about the sacrifices of sacred ancestors. You could be a sacred ancestor yourself in you'd only put down your weenie.

[Osborne Russell]

Well, I certainly would prefer not to be governed by the current crop of Regressives. So I will be asserting my right to assent to the kind of government I would prefer by visiting the ballot box in my locale in November.

OK, just remember, don't take it for granted.

[John Smith]

Well, I certainly would prefer not to be governed by the current crop of Regressives. So I will be asserting my right to assent to the kind of government I would prefer by visiting the ballot box in my locale in November.

Look around: we do not enjoy rights given us by God, but allowed to us by government.

We become increasingless free in regard to our individual rights, and we've become a nation of wimps that willingly gives up rights out of fear.

[John Smith]

Yep. It's the cornerstone of the American Revolution, as distinguished from the War of Independence.

Most Americans are uncomfortable with being so categorical about it, because they haven't thought it through. That means they're not really Americans.

People in other countries are understandably uneasy. Does it imply criticism of their government? Isn't that somewhat presumptuous?

This uneasiness is a good thing. Whatever may be their criticism of the principle, let's get it out in the open.

Better than stuffing your belly on Independence Day and barfing up a lot of barf about the sacrifices of sacred ancestors. You could be a sacred ancestor yourself in you'd only put down your weenie.

As a people, Americans have a simple ego problem. When the opportunity arises, ask what is patriotic about "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America". They are actually kind of arrogant in that they imply God likes us the best, although the USA isn't mentioned in the Bible. OUr blind pride will goeth before our fall.

I would love to live in the country so many seem to think this country is, but the country they think they live in is a mythical country.

[pefjr]

Over the years many things have been cited as supporting the legitimacy of governments:

-- God/the Gods
-- tradition
-- inertia
-- biology (e.g. the Master Race)
-- metaphysics (e.g. dialectical materialism)


All of them are condemned in the Declaration of Independence. Consent of the governed, period. The most important punctuation mark in history.

Is the MIC condemned in the DOI? The MIC determine by politics of the few parties who will lead this country. If you don't think that is the case then why is Ron Paul, a Republican, the only anti-war candidate running? It's been that way since the Korean War. It is Tradition by now, several generations know no difference. You don't think it is Tradition, then try changing this Imperialistic Attitude of the country to anything else. The Tradition is so strong that even the certainty of Bankruptcy can not slow it down. The Congress think that imposing a National Motto that violates the Constitution is more important than the responsibility of debt piled on future generations. Deal with the reality Osborne, we have to face reality.

[Osborne Russell]

Look around: we do not enjoy rights given us by God, but allowed to us by government.

We become increasingless free in regard to our individual rights, and we've become a nation of wimps that willingly gives up rights out of fear.

No point quibbling about what God means in this context, but emphatically, our rights are not "allowed to us by government".

[Kaa]

You could be a sacred ancestor yourself in you'd only put down your weenie.

ROFL... :-)

Kaa

[Osborne Russell]

Is the MIC condemned in the DOI?

Not per se, obviously. The question would be, does the MIC govern, and does it govern without the consent of the governed? The fact that it even comes up means it's serious, no matter what the answer is.

As a practical matter, our time and energy would be better spent trimming it back than trying to determine exactly where it crosses the line into a threat to popular sovereignty.

[Osborne Russell]

ROFL... :-)

Kaa

Don't get condiments all over yourself !

[Farfalla]

Iceland's "All thing", a democratic Parliament started in the C12. I think you guys are suffering from the delusion that your "founding fathers" came up with something new!
Speaking of the Founding fathers" their "just government" condoned slavery and the treatment of women as objects and lower forms of life.
"Just government" my ar*e!!

[pefjr]

Iceland's "All thing", a democratic Parliament started in the C12. I think you guys are suffering from the delusion that your "founding fathers" came up with something new!
Speaking of the Founding fathers" their "just government" condoned slavery and the treatment of women as objects and lower forms of life.
"Just government" my ar*e!!

condoned? you mean owned, condoned the stealing of property, and the slaughter of "savages, non-christians, and blasphemers" .

[Gerarddm]

As a people, Americans have a simple ego problem. When the opportunity arises, ask what is patriotic about "America the Beautiful" or "God Bless America". They are actually kind of arrogant in that they imply God likes us the best, although the USA isn't mentioned in the Bible. OUr blind pride will goeth before our fall.

Just remember, TinyTim said, God bless us all, every one. Literally, I guess that means Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot, etc.

Meanwhile, the governed have consented to having their collective nose cut off to spite their collective face. Nothing else explains support for dogmas that are so against their well-being.

[Osborne Russell]

Iceland's "All thing", a democratic Parliament started in the C12. I think you guys are suffering from the delusion that your "founding fathers" came up with something new!

In a sense that's true, the major elements were invented elsewhere -- the separation of powers, the separation of church and state, etc.. However, incorporating them all at once, with quasi-sovereign states and a two-chamber legislature, was entirely new. America was the first to do more than just talk about these things.

Speaking of the Founding fathers" their "just government" condoned slavery and the treatment of women as objects and lower forms of life.
"Just government" my ar*e!!

Those were compromises necessary to bring the southern states and their sympathizers into the union. They've been dragging their feet ever since. The modern Republican Party is the their direct descendant. From Independence Day to the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Nixon to Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent.

[pefjr]

In a sense that's true, the major elements were invented elsewhere -- the separation of powers, the separation of church and state, etc.. However, incorporating them all at once, with quasi-sovereign states and a two-chamber legislature, was entirely new. America was the first to do more than just talk about these things.



Those were compromises necessary to bring the southern states and their sympathizers into the union. They've been dragging their feet ever since. The modern Republican Party is the their direct descendant. From Independence Day to the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Nixon to Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent.

Some just need a scapegoat. Reality goes right past them untouched by a single original thought. The Chimp Family Tree. I think I was a seed that fell off, germinated and reproduced some more chimps. Sin Loi.

[Waddie]

Look around: we do not enjoy rights given us by God, but allowed to us by government.

We become increasingly less free in regard to our individual rights, and we've become a nation of wimps that willingly gives up rights out of fear.

That's an odd statement from a person who believes so strongly in the collectivization process and big government.... ;(

regards,
Waddie

[bobbys]

Iceland's "All thing", a democratic Parliament started in the C12. I think you guys are suffering from the delusion that your "founding fathers" came up with something new!
Speaking of the Founding fathers" their "just government" condoned slavery and the treatment of women as objects and lower forms of life.
"Just government" my ar*e!!

.

Nice soapbox speech from the Country that invades a Island thousands of miles away on another countries coast line for the oil and kills people. Its laughable to read English people make a case they own these Islands, You need to listen to Prez Obama and sit at the Negotiation table with the true owners the Argentinians. See Farfalla, Ours was a Long time ago the Slaves have been set free and woman have voted while you are still occupying....

boy yam i gonna get it now LOL

[Mad Scientist]

One aspect of the U.S. system which didn't catch on is the combining of Head of State and Head of Government in one person. Even the one-party Communist dictatorships of the last century mantained the fallacy that the Party leadership was separate from the State leadership. (Stalin did, in fact, take on both roles, when he began to realize that something was amiss with his relationship with Germany. That was May 6, 1941. The German attack commenced June 22.)

The potential danger in your system is that a President might fall victim to the delusion that a vote against him is Treason. I wonder if that's what led to Nixon's downfall?

Tom

[Farfalla]

Those were compromises necessary to bring the southern states and their sympathizers into the union. They've been dragging their feet ever since. The modern Republican Party is the their direct descendant. From Independence Day to the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Nixon to Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent.

Wow that's so enlightening. So all of the Northern States were totally anti slaveholding and pro women's rights but they thought it better to sacrifice all of that so that they could get the Southern states to join them.
So either way you want to present it, your Founding fathers don't come out of this very well.

If I accept your claim then these paragons of virtue turn out to be weaklings who condemned millions to suffering slavery for another century in the name of political expediency. Women were equally abandoned but for a whole lot longer.

Reality is that the majority of the "Old White Men" who were making the decisions didn't give a damn about women or slaves and were happy to continue on with the status quo so long as their economic rights were protected. The war of Independence was more about the rich Colonials protecting their wealth than any great statement of Universal Equality no matter how they tried to dress it up.

[Farfalla]

.

Nice soapbox speech from the Country that invades a Island thousands of miles away on another countries coast line for the oil and kills people. Its laughable to read English people make a case they own these Islands, You need to listen to Prez Obama and sit at the Negotiation table with the true owners the Argentinians. See Farfalla, Ours was a Long time ago the Slaves have been set free and woman have voted while you are still occupying....

boy yam i gonna get it now LOL

Wow bobbys I'm impressed on the one hand but disappointed on the other.
All those jokes people make about you are just wrong!
You did really well for a "Joisey Boy" and a roofer at that!!

You managed to get almost everything wrong in your post which is impressive but I'm disappointed for you that you couldn't manage a perfect score, you did get the President of the US right, it is Obama!

Rather than correct your errors, because I know you tried so, so hard, I'll just leave you with a couple of other islands that you might like to check up on.

Hawaii, seems someone went way out in the ocean and turned all the locals into serfs to work on their sugar plantations.

The Phillipines, wow that's a whole lot of islands.

Haiti, someone sent the Marines to invade the place and disband the democratically elected govt about a century ago.
Of course they had to go, all those poor US corporations were about to lose their right to rip off the islands.

There are a lot more but I wouldn't want to cause you any problems because I know that for you "Joisey Boys" geography gets a bit complicated once you get to the State line and a history book in Joisey is called a "rap sheet".

As far as the Falklands go, I'd be happy if the residents choose to join Argentina in their referendum next year but I think they'll vote to stay with England, it has been an English colony since before Argentina existed.

How about we get a "Joisey Boy's" view of the history of Women's rights and how well they are doing.

Thank you for your contribution Bobby, I'm waiting with bated breath for the "women's rights" piece. Maybe David G can help you out on that one. Seems he wasn't much help this time

[skuthorp]

I was going to post more of this here but I think I'll start another thread, the situation is worth that.

"WASHINGTON: In the first public accounting of its kind, US mobile phone carriers reported that they responded to a startling 1.3 million demands for subscriber data last year from law enforcement agencies seeking text messages, caller locations and other information in the course of investigations."

[BrianW]

I get the impression that our laws have always been improving towards freedom for all. When viewed with 20/20 hindsight, they may seem to fail (slavery and rights for women and minorities) in the past. They were fairly advanced for their time, and have evolved into what we now consider correct.

So, while it's fine and appropriate to remember our past, we must try to remember the mindset of the time. I think we've been on the right track from the start.

[Farfalla]

I get the impression that our laws have always been improving towards freedom for all. When viewed with 20/20 hindsight, they may seem to fail (slavery and rights for women and minorities) in the past. They were fairly advanced for their time, and have evolved into what we now consider correct.

So, while it's fine and appropriate to remember our past, we must try to remember the mindset of the time. I think we've been on the right track from the start.

There's an interesting story about Benjamin Franklin's time as ambassador to France. Apparently he showed a copy of the Declaration of Independence to a group of senior French political figures. They read the first few lines and then expressed their confusion about the "All men are equal" bit.
Slavery in France had been illegal for years.

[Farfalla]

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.

Well we already now how false that was for half the white folks and all the slaves.

But it's interesting that the constitution has a few very high sounding phrases.

Article IV, section 2, in the Constitution of the United States, says: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Article IX says: "The enumeration of certain rights shall not be considered to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Article XIV says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state [Page 362] wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Article XV says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

But none of that applied to women.
As one American woman writer put it in the late 1890's, several decades after slavery had been abolished!!

"A government by the people, of the people and for the people," which holds women as people and citizens, to bear its burdens, to be punished by its laws, but excluded from its privileges and immunities, is a government of robbery and usurpation.

[Osborne Russell]

One aspect of the U.S. system which didn't catch on is the combining of Head of State and Head of Government in one person. Even the one-party Communist dictatorships of the last century mantained the fallacy that the Party leadership was separate from the State leadership. (Stalin did, in fact, take on both roles, when he began to realize that something was amiss with his relationship with Germany. That was May 6, 1941. The German attack commenced June 22.)

How would you define a Head of State (who is not the Head of Government)?

The potential danger in your system is that a President might fall victim to the delusion that a vote against him is Treason. I wonder if that's what led to Nixon's downfall?

Our system considers that to be the inevitable tendency of human nature. Our system is designed to prevent it. Doesn't always succeed of course, but I don't see how it's a flaw in the design.

[Osborne Russell]

Wow that's so enlightening. So all of the Northern States were totally anti slaveholding and pro women's rights but they thought it better to sacrifice all of that so that they could get the Southern states to join them.
So either way you want to present it, your Founding fathers don't come out of this very well.

Yes, they had to acheive independence from England and invent a nation to replace their various colonial dependences. Nothing like it had been done and nothing like it has been done since. The closest thing I would say would be the EU.

If I accept your claim then these paragons of virtue turn out to be weaklings who condemned millions to suffering slavery for another century in the name of political expediency. Women were equally abandoned but for a whole lot longer.

Political expediency as in collective self-defense. Had they lost, when would England have outlawed slavery -- and either transported the slaves to Africa or remedied their social inequalities in the colonies -- and given women the vote? England was content to have the cheap cotton and other raw materials, together with the export markets, taxes, customs duties, etc. When it came to civil war, England supported the slave owners.

As it developed, such progress as has been possible in advancing civil rights is based squarely upon independence and the rationale given for it by those who acheived it.

Reality is that the majority of the "Old White Men" who were making the decisions didn't give a damn about women or slaves and were happy to continue on with the status quo so long as their economic rights were protected. The war of Independence was more about the rich Colonials protecting their wealth than any great statement of Universal Equality no matter how they tried to dress it up.

That was true of many of them but not all.

[Osborne Russell]

I get the impression that our laws have always been improving towards freedom for all. When viewed with 20/20 hindsight, they may seem to fail (slavery and rights for women and minorities) in the past. They were fairly advanced for their time, and have evolved into what we now consider correct.

So, while it's fine and appropriate to remember our past, we must try to remember the mindset of the time. I think we've been on the right track from the start.

Right on both counts, but can you see the conflict with what masquerades as conservatism nowadays? The whole idea was to start a process that would incrementally change society. The intent of the founders was that our society not be like theirs, so appealing to the intent of the founders as an argument against change is often nonsensical.

The pardoxical part is that they believed that great change could be accomplished in an orderly fashion, without wars and revolutions and such. They believed the machinery they invented could pull it off. IOW a revolution conducted according to rules, or you might say, a revolution conservatively managed. But a revolution, make no mistake.

[bobbys]

Wow bobbys I'm impressed on the one hand but disappointed on the other.
All those jokes people make about you are just wrong!
You did really well for a "Joisey Boy" and a roofer at that!!

You managed to get almost everything wrong in your post which is impressive but I'm disappointed for you that you couldn't manage a perfect score, you did get the President of the US right, it is Obama!

Rather than correct your errors, because I know you tried so, so hard, I'll just leave you with a couple of other islands that you might like to check up on.

Hawaii, seems someone went way out in the ocean and turned all the locals into serfs to work on their sugar plantations.

The Phillipines, wow that's a whole lot of islands.

Haiti, someone sent the Marines to invade the place and disband the democratically elected govt about a century ago.
Of course they had to go, all those poor US corporations were about to lose their right to rip off the islands.

There are a lot more but I wouldn't want to cause you any problems because I know that for you "Joisey Boys" geography gets a bit complicated once you get to the State line and a history book in Joisey is called a "rap sheet".

As far as the Falklands go, I'd be happy if the residents choose to join Argentina in their referendum next year but I think they'll vote to stay with England, it has been an English colony since before Argentina existed.

How about we get a "Joisey Boy's" view of the history of Women's rights and how well they are doing.

Thank you for your contribution Bobby, I'm waiting with bated breath for the "women's rights" piece. Maybe David G can help you out on that one. Seems he wasn't much help this time

.

Nice!.

I liked that Miss Farfalla but ya see the trouble with your time machine travels through history is you reserve the right to cherry pick whatever suits you.

The Truth is Obama see's the wrongs England is doing with the Falkland and the British Occupation. Why cannot you have your leaders sit at the table and negotiate?, Guess that Oil field sways morality.

Im not referring to Hawaii, Cuba The Catholic church, Iceland, woman's rights, Slavery, or whatever else you come up with in your history class

For practical purposes i will leave out Australia at this time.

Course if you do wish to talk about Woman Our Sarah Palin defends the Right for England to be wherever they are wandering at the moment.

But then that would put you on the Side of Her and not Obama which i imagine represents a bit of a dilemma for you..

As a side note New Jersey was named after the Jersey off England.

We lay no claim to its inhabitants or roofers..

Being Dutch I liked the Dutch names but then i would be revisiting more sore points...

[Osborne Russell]

Slavery in France had been illegal for years.

And very profitable in her colonies, where the slaves weren't considered humans and the whites weren't considered citizens. Both of those doctrines are gone while those of Thomas Jefferson are current the world over.

[pefjr]

And very profitable in her colonies, where the slaves weren't considered humans and the whites weren't considered citizens. Both of those doctrines are gone while those of Thomas Jefferson are current the world over.

Yes, his Indian Removal Bill failed, but later was adopted and carried out. And most of his schemes to trick the NA into giving up their land were successful even up to the present. Have you read 'Notes from Virginia', Osborne? Here a yokel, jack leg Anthropologist, compares the white and black skin color of H/Sapiens.

"Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of color in the white race, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black that covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, and their own judgment in favor of the whites, declared by the preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Orangutan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? . . .

"They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep. . . . They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous. . . . The Indians will astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, and their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration. . . .
"In music, they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time. . . . I believe that disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favor no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favor of others. . . Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity. The opinion that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations . . . where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them."

This TJ influence and thinking was almost stamped out by Republicans, but Woodrow Wilson brought it back for another Republican, Eisenhower, to later kill. Maybe there is some other doctrine that you are thinking of. What would that be, cause it sure ain't "governed by the consent of the governed" when over half are not even asked to consent, and some of those not even counted as a whole person. I will have to ask Sam F is this worship of yours, of the founding fathers, counts as a religion.

Now... Thomas Paine, you might say his ideas has an influence today.

[Farfalla]

.

Nice!.

I liked that Miss Farfalla but ya see the trouble with your time machine travels through history is you reserve the right to cherry pick whatever suits you.

The Truth is Obama see's the wrongs England is doing with the Falkland and the British Occupation. Why cannot you have your leaders sit at the table and negotiate?, Guess that Oil field sways morality.

Im not referring to Hawaii, Cuba The Catholic church, Iceland, woman's rights, Slavery, or whatever else you come up with in your history class

Tis a pleasure to discuss things with the likes of you Bobby. Civility and reasoned discussion that is sadly missing on some threads.
Well you see there are a few problems with your scenario.

The Truth is Obama see's the wrongs England is doing with the Falkland and the British Occupation. Why cannot you have your leaders sit at the table and negotiate?, Guess that Oil field sways morality.

You see Bobby there is this big gang that all the countries belong to, being from Joisey you'd know about gangs and how they are all connected, it's called the UN and they have a few rules that everyone is supposed to follow. One of those rules is an idea called self-determination. It means that the little places like the Falklands get to pick who they want to hang out with. That's why they are having a referendum for the people who actually live on the Islands to decide. Not a bunch of politicians and certainly not a bunch of Americans who want to get involved on Argentina's side so that the Argentinian govt. is more likely to look kindly on American oil companies when the time comes to explore for oil.
The idea that Obama and the US is getting involved because they want to see things come out just right for the people who live there is a little bit of a fairy story. Sort of like how the US had to go and invade Iraq to protect the world from Saddam and free the Iraqi people. It just happens that there is a whole lot of oil there too, just like in the Falklands. Surprise!

It's a pity that you can't see the parallels with hawaii and the Phillipines Bobby. Maybe you should get David G to explain it a bit better for you. A detailed look at American colonial history might help you understand this matter a bit better and to understand why some people laugh at the US getting involved claiming to be so pure of intent.
Take a look at that other place where they are being ever so helpful towards the local people being illegally occupied, you may have heard of it, the people are called the Palestinians! The Americans are doing such a wonderful job of protecting them, it's not like they are subsidising the occupying power militarily or anything bad like that. Oh no, they are so pure!
I hope that helps Bobby. If david G won't help you just ask I'm happy to anytime.
Have fun,
Sophie

[Farfalla]

Osborne it's interesting to hear that you guys credit all those ideas to Jefferson, maybe you haven't heard of John Locke, Voltaire and Rousseau who all predate Jefferson. As far as I know none of them kept slaves or had children with their slaves.
I guess he was a secret supporter of the whole anti-slavery, women's rights thing. A really secret supporter!

As for political expediency well we all know what a wonderful excuse that is.

Yes, they had to acheive independence from England and invent a nation to replace their various colonial dependences. Nothing like it had been done and nothing like it has been done since.

You might want to tell that to the French or the Indians or the Chinese or maybe even the Russians. I seem to recall all of them revolting against monarchies and making new nations. Their problem is they weren't just a few little colonies on the edge of a huge country full of resources and they didn't have a superpower like France was at the time, aiding them against their Imperial power.
History is never quite as clearcut and pretty as the idealists would have us believe.

[seanz]

.



Being Dutch I liked the Dutch names but then i would be revisiting more sore points...

bobbys is Dutch?