Blog-Happy 4th Of July!

[MattHughesRocks]

From Matt's blog

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

[Bonnie]

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.

Thanks for the blog Matt, that really hits home for me.

[Tyburn]

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

[Jonlion]

Happy 4th of July!

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

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

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

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]

Originally Posted by NateR

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]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

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.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

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.

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

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

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

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!