PDA

View Full Version : Blog-Happy 4th Of July!


MattHughesRocks
07-04-2009, 09:42 PM
From Matt's blog :)

http://www.matt-hughes.com/

Bonnie
07-04-2009, 11:20 PM
Happy 4th of July everyone!

Good post, Matt.

Thanks to all our service men and women who give us so very much of themselves and also their families who give up so much so that their loved ones can defend and protect us. :)

mikthehick
07-05-2009, 05:44 AM
Thanks for the blog Matt, that really hits home for me.

Tyburn
07-05-2009, 10:40 AM
Slightly confused, The document claims that it is the unanamous view of all the Collonies, and the signitures of all States are on the document. Therefore, do I assume that when you say two states voted against, one abstained and one didnt vote...your talking about the General Public? if so...how could those four States, the leadership of which sign the document, when the people said no to it? I dont understand how they could have signed it, or said it was unanamous...and yet four out of thirteen were hesitant?


So if the leadership voted against...my question is how come they signed up for it?

if the people voted against...my question is, of all the documents to sign without your peoples permission...why did those states sign up to something the people didnt back in four states...?

Can someone explain to me what piece of the puzzle I'm missing here :unsure-1: :huh:

Jonlion
07-05-2009, 04:45 PM
Happy 4th of July!

I watched the Texas Rangers play and it was a great way to spend the holiday

NateR
07-05-2009, 05:48 PM
Slightly confused, The document claims that it is the unanamous view of all the Collonies, and the signitures of all States are on the document. Therefore, do I assume that when you say two states voted against, one abstained and one didnt vote...your talking about the General Public? if so...how could those four States, the leadership of which sign the document, when the people said no to it? I dont understand how they could have signed it, or said it was unanamous...and yet four out of thirteen were hesitant?


So if the leadership voted against...my question is how come they signed up for it?

if the people voted against...my question is, of all the documents to sign without your peoples permission...why did those states sign up to something the people didnt back in four states...?

Can someone explain to me what piece of the puzzle I'm missing here :unsure-1: :huh:

Simple. America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. Meaning that the people don't vote on issues, the people elect representatives to vote on issues for them. In this case, the representatives of those two states voted against the Declaration of Independence. Which doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of people in those particular states were against it.

In a perfect world, the elected representatives would always agree with the will of the people; but it doesn't always work that way in reality. Which is why all of our elected officials have to run for reelection every few years.

Tyburn
07-05-2009, 06:50 PM
Simple. America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. Meaning that the people don't vote on issues, the people elect representatives to vote on issues for them. In this case, the representatives of those two states voted against the Declaration of Independence. Which doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of people in those particular states were against it.

In a perfect world, the elected representatives would always agree with the will of the people; but it doesn't always work that way in reality. Which is why all of our elected officials have to run for reelection every few years.
So your saying that actually the State at a Governmental Level voted against the Declairation...in which case...how come there are signitories from those States?

OR are there Signitures infact missing...but with one signiture from every State was all that was required??

I mean...arent the Signitures those of the "representative"? or are they people signing on behalf of the majority of Representative in the state and the outcome of that vote...in which case...


I'm basically asking...why are their signitures on that document under the names of collonies that at whatever level rejected or didnt vote??

NateR
07-05-2009, 09:45 PM
So your saying that actually the State at a Governmental Level voted against the Declairation...in which case...how come there are signitories from those States?

OR are there Signitures infact missing...but with one signiture from every State was all that was required??

I mean...arent the Signitures those of the "representative"? or are they people signing on behalf of the majority of Representative in the state and the outcome of that vote...in which case...


I'm basically asking...why are their signitures on that document under the names of collonies that at whatever level rejected or didnt vote??

Well, the final signature didn't come until August, so it took a while for all of the representatives to get up the nerve to sign the Declaration. They were essentially signing their death warrants, if the revolution went badly; since they would be giving the British King written proof of treason.

However, my guess is that the Declaration of Independence received such overwhelming support when presented to the American people that many of those representatives eventually signed it to protect their jobs.:laugh:

Tyburn
07-05-2009, 10:35 PM
Well, the final signature didn't come until August, so it took a while for all of the representatives to get up the nerve to sign the Declaration. They were essentially signing their death warrants, if the revolution went badly; since they would be giving the British King written proof of treason.

However, my guess is that the Declaration of Independence received such overwhelming support when presented to the American people that many of those representatives eventually signed it to protect their jobs.:laugh:
I understand, so bassically, they changed their minds and all came around

Also...Are you telling me that the Declaration STARTED the War of Independance? Only I thought it funny that the wording implied the war was still going on...the penultimate accusation is that the King At the time of writing, is sending troops by sea to attack. I always assumed this was written as a Statement AFTER the War...you know having Achieved Independance...not if you like a Statement of Intent...basically an Act of War

My final Question is that the Signitories are all in coloumns and under each Single Collonial Name is all the Representatives...EXCEPT for the very last Signiture which is from a man who signed...but not with the rest of the representatives from his Collonie....What up with that?....is that more likely what you said...the last person to cave in after all the other entire representatives had signed...or was he simply not present at the signing for his collonie...and so had to tag on at the end?

I thought you might like to know that if you look in the other thread in the political section entitled "my gift for my American friends" or something like that...you can hear a recitation.....

I plan on addressing a couple of the charges in my weekly blog...just the ones I think shouldnt be on that list :laugh:

Play The Man
07-06-2009, 08:08 AM
I understand, so bassically, they changed their minds and all came around

Also...Are you telling me that the Declaration STARTED the War of Independance? Only I thought it funny that the wording implied the war was still going on...the penultimate accusation is that the King At the time of writing, is sending troops by sea to attack. I always assumed this was written as a Statement AFTER the War...you know having Achieved Independance...not if you like a Statement of Intent...basically an Act of War

My final Question is that the Signitories are all in coloumns and under each Single Collonial Name is all the Representatives...EXCEPT for the very last Signiture which is from a man who signed...but not with the rest of the representatives from his Collonie....What up with that?....is that more likely what you said...the last person to cave in after all the other entire representatives had signed...or was he simply not present at the signing for his collonie...and so had to tag on at the end?

I thought you might like to know that if you look in the other thread in the political section entitled "my gift for my American friends" or something like that...you can hear a recitation.....

I plan on addressing a couple of the charges in my weekly blog...just the ones I think shouldnt be on that list :laugh:

Are you referring to John Hancock's signature? Is it the largest signature? John Hancock was the president of the continental congress. His name has become synonymous with signature to the point that when people are asked to sign a contract they are asked to give their "John Hancock". There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that he signed so large so that King George could read his signature without using his spectacles!

Tyburn
07-06-2009, 10:32 AM
Are you referring to John Hancock's signature? Is it the largest signature? John Hancock was the president of the continental congress. His name has become synonymous with signature to the point that when people are asked to sign a contract they are asked to give their "John Hancock". There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that he signed so large so that King George could read his signature without using his spectacles!
your Constitution that Ive read so far doesnt mention a "president of the continental congress" It mentions a President...or in his absence a Vice President, or in the absence of both a temporary president,

and a speaker.

Why didnt he sign with the rest of the signitories from his own collony?

Play The Man
07-06-2009, 07:43 PM
your Constitution that Ive read so far doesnt mention a "president of the continental congress" It mentions a President...or in his absence a Vice President, or in the absence of both a temporary president,

and a speaker.

Why didnt he sign with the rest of the signitories from his own collony?

I am confuse now.:unsure: Are you talking about signatures on the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution (1787)?. I thought you were talking about the Declaration.

Tyburn
07-06-2009, 08:43 PM
I am confuse now.:unsure: Are you talking about signatures on the Declaration of Independence (1776) or the Constitution (1787)?. I thought you were talking about the Declaration.
LOL.

I'm talking about the signitures on the Declaration of Independance...but noting that your Constiution doesnt mention the rank of the particular signiture that seems a bit out of place.

ohhh...hang on...I thought the Consitution came BEFORE the Declaration?? I mean you already had many Presidents by then didnt you??

Okay I'm confused myself now. :blink:

Rev
07-06-2009, 09:01 PM
I like apples.:blink: :wacko:

Play The Man
07-06-2009, 09:12 PM
LOL.

I'm talking about the signitures on the Declaration of Independance...but noting that your Constiution doesnt mention the rank of the particular signiture that seems a bit out of place.

ohhh...hang on...I thought the Consitution came BEFORE the Declaration?? I mean you already had many Presidents by then didnt you??

Okay I'm confused myself now. :blink:

Before the Constitution was ratified there was a document called "The Articles of Confederation" which helped define the relationship between the states. At that time, people thought of their state as their "country". Jefferson considered himself a Virginian. This persisted to some extent up until the Civil War. General George Washington was the first president of the United States, he was inaugurated on April 30, 1789. John Hancock was president of the Continental Congress which was first convened in 1774 as a reaction to the "Coercive Acts" passed by the British Parliament. The First Continental Congress only issued a petition for redress of grievances. If Britain had addressed the grievances, Independence might have never occurred.

Tyburn
07-06-2009, 10:35 PM
Before the Constitution was ratified there was a document called "The Articles of Confederation" which helped define the relationship between the states. At that time, people thought of their state as their "country". Jefferson considered himself a Virginian. This persisted to some extent up until the Civil War. General George Washington was the first president of the United States, he was inaugurated on April 30, 1789. John Hancock was president of the Continental Congress which was first convened in 1774 as a reaction to the "Coercive Acts" passed by the British Parliament. The First Continental Congress only issued a petition for redress of grievances. If Britain had addressed the grievances, Independence might have never occurred.
That explains why the siggie on the DOI is of a rank not mentioned in the later consitution.

I had heard that they submitted a document...wasnt it about a decade before the DOI...telling England there were so many points which they should consider looking into.

I hear that England completely ignored them...they settled down because they felt they had been able to voice a complaint...and because a new King was crowned, then ten years later the English piled more on their plate and it was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

I have to admit, as an Englishman...that I would not have handled the collonies in the same way as the King and Parliament, Either King. I think I would have at least addressed their concerns...I would also have taken Franklin up on his offer and given them, as compsensation ten years late for higher taxes, places in the British Government...We would have then at least kept the Collonial American States. There would...I reckon have not them been Independance until maybe later...I think...infact...we would have been more likely to lose the collonies to another strong Nation...sooner or later America...being so far away from the sources of her Government...would have wanted her own Independance.

We might have held it up until the world wars...I think America would probably have gained independance between World Wars...but who is to say.

England blew it big time...after investigation, although I think the Americans were extremely tempermental...I think they had enough of a good reason to wish to go solo...I think it could have been avoided if we had paid them their dues...I dont think they were originally asking for anything beyond our capability to give...nor anything seriously outrageous.

in all fairness...apart from the French coming to your aid...we deserved about everything we got I reckon :)

Play The Man
07-06-2009, 10:53 PM
That explains why the siggie on the DOI is of a rank not mentioned in the later consitution.

I had heard that they submitted a document...wasnt it about a decade before the DOI...telling England there were so many points which they should consider looking into.

I hear that England completely ignored them...they settled down because they felt they had been able to voice a complaint...and because a new King was crowned, then ten years later the English piled more on their plate and it was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

I have to admit, as an Englishman...that I would not have handled the collonies in the same way as the King and Parliament, Either King. I think I would have at least addressed their concerns...I would also have taken Franklin up on his offer and given them, as compsensation ten years late for higher taxes, places in the British Government...We would have then at least kept the Collonial American States. There would...I reckon have not them been Independance until maybe later...I think...infact...we would have been more likely to lose the collonies to another strong Nation...sooner or later America...being so far away from the sources of her Government...would have wanted her own Independance.

We might have held it up until the world wars...I think America would probably have gained independance between World Wars...but who is to say.

England blew it big time...after investigation, although I think the Americans were extremely tempermental...I think they had enough of a good reason to wish to go solo...I think it could have been avoided if we had paid them their dues...I dont think they were originally asking for anything beyond our capability to give...nor anything seriously outrageous.

in all fairness...apart from the French coming to your aid...we deserved about everything we got I reckon :)

Resentment and protest had been present since at least the Stamp Act (1765). There was a Stamp Act Congress which petitioned the Parliament with a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances". The petition was not recognized. The Stamp Act was unpopular with British merchants as well and was repealed.

Play The Man
07-06-2009, 10:56 PM
in all fairness...apart from the French coming to your aid...we deserved about everything we got I reckon :)

Perhaps it was pay back for sending Hessian mercenaries?:punch:

matthughesfan21
07-06-2009, 11:50 PM
LOL.

I'm talking about the signitures on the Declaration of Independance...but noting that your Constiution doesnt mention the rank of the particular signiture that seems a bit out of place.

ohhh...hang on...I thought the Consitution came BEFORE the Declaration?? I mean you already had many Presidents by then didnt you??

Okay I'm confused myself now. :blink:the constitution was years later(June of 1788 was when it became ratified i believe, correct me if im wrong)..and no we didn't have presidents until the ratification of the constitution...George Washington became our 1st president in April of 1789

Tyburn
07-07-2009, 12:05 AM
Resentment and protest had been present since at least the Stamp Act (1765). There was a Stamp Act Congress which petitioned the Parliament with a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances". The petition was not recognized. The Stamp Act was unpopular with British merchants as well and was repealed.
Yes ive heard of the Declaration...thats the one I meant...it was about ten years before DOI I think...cant remember now LOL

Tyburn
07-07-2009, 12:11 AM
Perhaps it was pay back for sending Hessian mercenaries?:punch:
Well the One area I aggree with the King on is that under NO circumstances should the Collonies of America be trading in the South Pacific with France. England was at war with France...sugar trade or not...you just dont got trading with the Enemy...That might explain why England didnt listen to your grieviances....Now had I been the King I wouldnt have festered hatred that the collonies were dealing with France. I would have told them right at the start of the Seven Years war...that they may do trade with anyone they wish...but they dont go trading with France

If they then did go Trading with France...I wouldnt have been nasty to the Collonial citizens...I would however have treated merchant ships dealing with the French as French...and I would have sunk them...I guarentee that I wouldnt need to order an embargo on Trade...America would have ceased her trade of her own accord.

Those who were responsible, I would have tried for treason...the rest may continue to do trade in sugar with anyone but France.

I can do Tyrany :laugh:

thekevineri
07-07-2009, 09:43 PM
...the US Marine Corps was founded in November 1775. The United States, 1776.


Taking names, since before we had a country.

Semper.

Play The Man
07-07-2009, 10:36 PM
...the US Marine Corps was founded in November 1775. The United States, 1776.


Taking names, since before we had a country.

Semper.

The U.S. Marine Corps certainly does have a long and storied history. In fact, the Marines' war with Muslim terrorists is also long-standing. I don't think the average American knows the meaning of the phrase in the Marines' Hymn: "to the shores of Tripoli" North African, Muslim terrorists, known as the Barbary corsairs, took over 1 million European and American citizens hostage as slaves from the 16th to the 19th century. They did this by capturing ships and raiding coastland villages as far away as the British Isles and Iceland. They raped the women and sold them to harems. Captives were tortured to become Muslims. When America was a fledgling nation, we were forced to pay tribute (bribe money) to keep our merchant ships safe. Finally, Thomas Jefferson unleashed the U.S. Navy and the Marines on them; this was the beginning of the end for the Barbary corsairs. It is a shame that every American doesn't know the name, Stephen Decatur. As a side note, the Marines got their nickname, Leathernecks, from the leather collars they wore to protect them from the cutlass blades of the pirates.

Miss Foxy
07-08-2009, 01:01 AM
...the US Marine Corps was founded in November 1775. The United States, 1776.


Taking names, since before we had a country.

Semper.
Semper Fidelis!! I have a spot in my heart for Marines :wink:

NateR
07-08-2009, 02:09 AM
The U.S. Marine Corps certainly does have a long and storied history. In fact, the Marines' war with Muslim terrorists is also long-standing. I don't think the average American knows the meaning of the phrase in the Marines' Hymn: "to the shores of Tripoli" North African, Muslim terrorists, known as the Barbary corsairs, took over 1 million European and American citizens hostage as slaves from the 16th to the 19th century. They did this by capturing ships and raiding coastland villages as far away as the British Isles and Iceland. They raped the women and sold them to harems. Captives were tortured to become Muslims. When America was a fledgling nation, we were forced to pay tribute (bribe money) to keep our merchant ships safe. Finally, Thomas Jefferson unleashed the U.S. Navy and the Marines on them; this was the beginning of the end for the Barbary corsairs. It is a shame that every American doesn't know the name, Stephen Decatur. As a side note, the Marines got their nickname, Leathernecks, from the leather collars they wore to protect them from the cutlass blades of the pirates.

Yep, Muslim terrorists have been a problem since before America even existed. So, the "blame America for everything" crowd can't pin this one on us.

MattHughesRocks
07-08-2009, 04:10 AM
YA-HOO!

Yep, Muslim terrorists have been a problem since before America even existed. So, the "blame America for everything" crowd can't pin this one on us.