Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does this apply to the founding fathers?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
aesthete8
Jul 18, 2012, 6:07:37 AM7/18/12
to
- When liberty is mentioned, we must always be careful to observe
whether it is not really the assertion of private interests which is
thereby designated.
Hegel
whether it is not really the assertion of private interests which is
thereby designated.
Hegel
John W Kennedy
Jul 18, 2012, 10:38:41 AM7/18/12
to
were unworthy (especially the colonists' dislike of the British plan to
keep peace with the Indians by not allowing further western
colonization, and of the granting of civil rights to Roman Catholics in
Qu�bec), the core of it all was a genuine belief in parliamentarianism,
and anger that the colonies were being left out.
--
John W Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
a425couple
Jul 19, 2012, 9:34:38 AM7/19/12
to
"John W Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message...
The North American colonies had 1/3 the population of
the British Empire (and the 2nd largest city) and had
no representation in Parliment (and there was no serious
proposal to give them any).
Plus, in the prior decades, their local government representative
assemblies had grown to where they had better 'democratic'
local government than in England.
The various 'punative' acts of KGIII's rule were taking AWAY
things from them, that they had gotten used to.
> aesthete8 said:
>> - When liberty is mentioned, we must always be careful to observe
>> whether it is not really the assertion of private interests which is
>> thereby designated.
>
> For the most part, no. While some of the motives behind the Revolution
> were unworthy (especially the colonists' dislike of the British plan to
> keep peace with the Indians by not allowing further western colonization,
> and of the granting of civil rights to Roman Catholics in Qu�bec), the
> core of it all was a genuine belief in parliamentarianism, and anger that
> the colonies were being left out.
I will agree with that last bit.
>> - When liberty is mentioned, we must always be careful to observe
>> whether it is not really the assertion of private interests which is
>> thereby designated.
>
> For the most part, no. While some of the motives behind the Revolution
> were unworthy (especially the colonists' dislike of the British plan to
> keep peace with the Indians by not allowing further western colonization,
> and of the granting of civil rights to Roman Catholics in Qu�bec), the
> core of it all was a genuine belief in parliamentarianism, and anger that
> the colonies were being left out.
The North American colonies had 1/3 the population of
the British Empire (and the 2nd largest city) and had
no representation in Parliment (and there was no serious
proposal to give them any).
Plus, in the prior decades, their local government representative
assemblies had grown to where they had better 'democratic'
local government than in England.
The various 'punative' acts of KGIII's rule were taking AWAY
things from them, that they had gotten used to.
aesthete8
Jul 19, 2012, 2:00:45 PM7/19/12
to
0 new messages