V
vern_humphrey
Guest
La Chiara said:I love your take on the Founding Fathers!
As someone else said on a different thread, “There’s not enough tinfoil in the world for some people.”
- Status
As someone else said on a different thread, “There’s not enough tinfoil in the world for some people.”
L
La_Chiara
Guest
vern humphrey:
(Though I suspect I am not going to like the answer.)
Say what?
(Though I suspect I am not going to like the answer.)
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
La Chiara:
The reference is to tinfoil helmits (supposedly worn by some real conspiracy theorists to keep the government from reading their minds.)http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gifSay what?
Servus Pio XII:
Of course, I expect most other American posters here to bitterly disagree with you.
Other than that, I can’t say any more. I am not an American.
No problem. All I posted was decide whether or not you agree with the Declaration, and you will or will not agree with the justness of the War. Since you don’t agree with the Declaration, then it follows that you don’t agree with the War. All I say was that that’s probably how Americans should determine whether or not the War was just.
Of course, I expect most other American posters here to bitterly disagree with you.
Other than that, I can’t say any more. I am not an American.
D
didymus
Guest
vern humphrey:
I’ve not only read it, before my bookstore went under we celebrated Constitution Week every year & gave out hundreds of vest-pocket Constitutions.
I should probably have said the “founding generation” rather than “the Founders” in reference to anti-Catholicism, though I’m sure there was enough anti-RC sentiment in the Continental Congress. Oddly, probably the most tolerant were the most “Godless” – the Deists like Jefferson, Franklin and Paine.
Yes, I’m aware of the role Jefferson played in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Is there some reason you assume that I haven’t?
I’ve not only read it, before my bookstore went under we celebrated Constitution Week every year & gave out hundreds of vest-pocket Constitutions.
You’re referring to Charles Carroll of Carrollton?
I should probably have said the “founding generation” rather than “the Founders” in reference to anti-Catholicism, though I’m sure there was enough anti-RC sentiment in the Continental Congress. Oddly, probably the most tolerant were the most “Godless” – the Deists like Jefferson, Franklin and Paine.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Constitution is the refutation of the claim that the Founding Fathers were anti-catholic, or anti-any religion. The United States is not a Masonic plot (as at least one poster has claimed), nor an attempt to quash the Catholic Church.
S
Servus_Pio_XII
Guest
I never said that! 
What I said was that since a good deal of the Founders were Masons, masonic principles obviously are an important cornerstone in the foundation of the nation. Since it is the ideals of the Masons (namely Gnosticism) that the Church bases is dislike for them on, this country was also founded irreligiously.
I never said it was a Masonic plot!
What I said was that since a good deal of the Founders were Masons, masonic principles obviously are an important cornerstone in the foundation of the nation. Since it is the ideals of the Masons (namely Gnosticism) that the Church bases is dislike for them on, this country was also founded irreligiously.
I never said it was a Masonic plot!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Servus Pio XII:
Servus Pio XII:
So name these “masonic principles” and tell me the articles, sections and clauses of the Constitution where they appear.I never said that!
What I said was that since a good deal of the Founders were Masons, masonic principles obviously are an important cornerstone in the foundation of the nation. Since it is the ideals of the Masons (namely Gnosticism) that the Church bases is dislike for them on, this country was also founded irreligiously.
Servus Pio XII:
My apologies. I exaggerated your position.I never said it was a Masonic plot!
M
Mike_Dye
Guest
Who started the war? We just declared that we wanted to be left alone, The British were the one’s with issues. If you don’t think so just look what happenen in 1812. No wonder they lost the war!
Mike
Mike
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
Yes, they made the choice to secede from their legal government, which was Parliment in England.
The Americans lost at both Bunker and Breed’s Hill. The Americans won Boston not because of either Bunker Hill or Breed’s Hill (I walk past both sites on a daily basis) is was because the ox drawn cannon which were transported in deep winter from Fort Ticondergoga were installed at the Dorchester Heights (where my high school is situated) and alledgedly drove the Brits out of Boston.
The oncoming British troops caused Washington to abandon that camp despite the presence of Prussian, von Stuben, and Polish, Thaddeus Kozcuisco, mercenaries training the ragedy colonial militia.
No such thing. The colonial army was taking a shellacking by the British here in Boston. Bostonians were starving due to the British navy blockading the port of Boston. (Boston did not become a city until 1835). It was the Franco/American Alliance in 1778, thanks to Ben Franklin, which turned the tide of the war against England.
The British won the first battle of Saratoga and eventually lost due to the complacency of General Burgoyne. It was no stunning victory.
Not a chance, it was the 16 French infantry divisions plus the French fleet under the Comte de Grasse which defeated the British at Yorktown. Thanks to the diplomatic efforts of Ben Franklin, France had contributed 15 billion dollars in today’s money plus supplies, uniforms, equipment, ammunition, and manpower to the seditious Americans as revenge for France’s humiliating defeat in the French & Indian Wars by the British. Washington’s ragtag measley 30,000 colonial militia were out of powder, food, and moral. The French King, Louis XVI (of guillotine fame) recommended that America beg a loan from Portugal, before Franklin convinced him to intervene on American behalf. No French intervention, no United States of America!
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
Mike Dye:
In 1798 the new republic of the United States declared war against France for that country’s impressment of American seaman off our ships. The USS CONSTITUTION and especially the USS CONSTELLATION achieved several brilliant victories against French frigates in the Carribean. In 1801 the ‘Quasi-War’ with France was over as the new leader of France, Napoleon Bonaparte, recognized the United States.
In 1812 the fledging American republic declared war on the superpower Great Britain for impressing American seaman off U.S. flagged merchant vessels. The USS CONSTITUTION scored brilliant victories against British frigates, yet the British captured the USS PRESIDENT and broke her up (there are still windmills in England made from the timbers of this Yankee frigate). In 1814 both America and England came to an agreement; because England was involved in a major war against Napoleon, Britain could not be bothered fighting with its gadfly former colony. Plus the USS CONSTITUTION, a 44 gun super-frigate, was unprecedented in the history of naval warfare. In 1815 the British countered this threat with their 50 gun LYDIA class of super-frigates.
Who started the American Revolutionary War? A small handful of dissidents instigated a series of clashes with their legal government and eventually declared independence from their lawful and righteous King. Since the majority of the 13 British colonies were still loyal to King George, the minority opposition was seen as a mutiny by the British. The Declaration of Independence was more a call for help to European kingdoms than it was a realistic break from their government. The continental congress was in a panic fishing for European allies who would grant loans to a broke American congress to fight against their government. France became the major ally, along with minor help from Prussia and Poland. The resultant Franco/American Alliance of 1778 was the turning point for a realistic broach from Britain.
In 1798 the new republic of the United States declared war against France for that country’s impressment of American seaman off our ships. The USS CONSTITUTION and especially the USS CONSTELLATION achieved several brilliant victories against French frigates in the Carribean. In 1801 the ‘Quasi-War’ with France was over as the new leader of France, Napoleon Bonaparte, recognized the United States.
In 1812 the fledging American republic declared war on the superpower Great Britain for impressing American seaman off U.S. flagged merchant vessels. The USS CONSTITUTION scored brilliant victories against British frigates, yet the British captured the USS PRESIDENT and broke her up (there are still windmills in England made from the timbers of this Yankee frigate). In 1814 both America and England came to an agreement; because England was involved in a major war against Napoleon, Britain could not be bothered fighting with its gadfly former colony. Plus the USS CONSTITUTION, a 44 gun super-frigate, was unprecedented in the history of naval warfare. In 1815 the British countered this threat with their 50 gun LYDIA class of super-frigates.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Bobby A. Greene:
The Declaration of Independence was not a declaration of war. The war was already on-going, and it was not the Americans who sent an army to England.
No. The crown actedillegally against all the colonies, abrogating charters, denying assent to laws, and imposing rule by force on the colonies.
The Declaration of Independence was not a declaration of war. The war was already on-going, and it was not the Americans who sent an army to England.
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
vern humphrey:
No. The Crown was provoked by a series of petty defiances such as the Boston Tea Party (and the Philadelphian Tea Party) which institigated England to punish her colonies, just as the Supreme Court ordered the ten commandments to be removed from a state court house. The thirteen British colonies in America were British and subject to British law and the whims of Parliment. Those 13 of 56 British colonies were never considered independent by Great Britain.
True. But it was an act of sedetion (or a mutiny). The continental congress was realistic enough to know England would never recognize their colony’s declaration of freedom; the Declaration of Indepence was for the benefit of European Kingdoms, such as Portugal, Spain, France, Poland, Prussia, Italy, Russia, who might show sympathy with the colonials and render economic and material assistance. The Declaration of Independence was as shrewd a piece of interventionist manuevering as was the Emancipation Proclamation almost a hundred years later.
It wasn’t an Army the Americans sent to England, but a Navy; in 1777 John Paul Jones in his sloop RANGER sank British shipping off the coast of England and Scotland and made damaging raids ashore. SInce in 1777 England possessed an 800 ship navy, Lieutenant Jones’s efforts were more of psychological value for the propaganda effort than any real threat to the British Empire and her 56 colonies (including her 13 colonies in America).
H
hilde_the_dog
Guest
vern humphrey:
Hey wait this sounds like Washington DC. No representation and Congress oversees all the affiars. What’s the point of a legislature if their is an absolute veto. Can they start a war?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Bobby A. Greene:
The Crown’s actins were patently illegal and could not be tolerated. We were free English citizens, not slaves.
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
And being civilians, they could hardly be guilty of mutiny.
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Just as the woman wearing the tight skirt provoked her rapist.
The Crown’s actins were patently illegal and could not be tolerated. We were free English citizens, not slaves.
Bobby A. Greene:
No, they were not. They were self-governing colonies, with charters and rights.
Bobby A. Greene:
Nor did they declare independence until after the war was forced on them.
Bobby A. Greene:
Mass punisment is not legal for either crime. There were standing courts to try people the Crown accused of sedition.
And being civilians, they could hardly be guilty of mutiny.
Bobby A. Greene:
Which is neither here nor there – the war was already raging when the Declaration of Independence was drafted. The war was forced on us – we did not send armies to England!
Bobby A. Greene:
Two years after the war was forced on us, and a year after the Declaration of Independence.
B
Bobby_A.Greene
Guest
vern humphrey:
The commonwealth of Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1755! No, we were not slaves but British subjects under British law and under British representation, Massachusetts had a legal Governor (Thomas Hutchinson) who was sent packing back to England by the mob! Could you imagine what would happen if Massachusetts residents packed off Governor Mitt Romney back to Washington D.C. and declared the independence of Massachusetts from the Federal Government? Wait, isn’t that similar to what the Southern States did in 1860 and the Union Army came and preserved the Union?
On July 4th, 1776, the outlaw continental congress officially declared treason against their lawful government with the Declaration of Independence, which the British did not take seriously.
Yet by late 1776 Washington’s psuedo Army of 32,000 scraggly volunteers and militia were out of ammunition and gunpowder, Washington couldn’t even afford to feed his ragtag rebels. The Declaration of Independence was a paper tiger and not worth the parchment it was written on.
If it wasn’t for French Intervention of 1778 (thanks to the diplomatic genius of Benjamin Franklin) the rebel cause would have been lost.
So according to your metaphor, England was the woman wearing the tight skirt and the colonists were the rapists? I’ll agree with you on that.
The commonwealth of Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1755! No, we were not slaves but British subjects under British law and under British representation, Massachusetts had a legal Governor (Thomas Hutchinson) who was sent packing back to England by the mob! Could you imagine what would happen if Massachusetts residents packed off Governor Mitt Romney back to Washington D.C. and declared the independence of Massachusetts from the Federal Government? Wait, isn’t that similar to what the Southern States did in 1860 and the Union Army came and preserved the Union?
Under British laws, with British charters, and the same rights as all British subjects living in all other British colonies. And the thirteen (out of fifty six) British colonies all had British governors and representatives because the colonists were BRITISH including Paul Revere, Sam Adams, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Otis, Ethan Allen, and the rest of the treasonous rebels. And these British subjects committed acts of treason against their lawful government and got someone else, France, to pull their fat out of the fire.
They brought the war upon themselves by their continuous destructive acts of treason against their government!
Quartering of soldiers in private residences, moving the capitol of Massachusetts from Boston to Salem, and the blockade of Boston harbor as a direct result of the tea party was mass punishment.
Parliment saw it as such.
The war was hardly raging! In 1775 a few gunshots were fired by scared farmers at Lexington and Concord. May of 1775 the ragedy American militia got drubbed at Breeds Hill and at Bunker Hill. The English victory at Bunker Hill allowed British Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne with an extra 10,000 more troops to occupy Boston for another nine months.
On July 4th, 1776, the outlaw continental congress officially declared treason against their lawful government with the Declaration of Independence, which the British did not take seriously.
Yet by late 1776 Washington’s psuedo Army of 32,000 scraggly volunteers and militia were out of ammunition and gunpowder, Washington couldn’t even afford to feed his ragtag rebels. The Declaration of Independence was a paper tiger and not worth the parchment it was written on.
A year after the Declaration of Independence was scribbled Washington’s army was near starvation and ruin and freezing their butts off huddled in Valley Forge like a bunch of homeless dudes around a barrel fire.
If it wasn’t for French Intervention of 1778 (thanks to the diplomatic genius of Benjamin Franklin) the rebel cause would have been lost.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Bobby A. Greene:
Did we send an army to England to attack them, or did they send an army to America to subjugate and attack us?
We were the victims. They were the ones acting illegally.
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Bobby A. Greene:
Who attacked who?
Did we send an army to England to attack them, or did they send an army to America to subjugate and attack us?
We were the victims. They were the ones acting illegally.
Bobby A. Greene:
And the Crown would have had a case to identify the mob leaders and put them on trial. They did not have the legal right to rescind colonial charters.
Bobby A. Greene:
Nope – the Crown acted illegally. The Crown sent an army to America. The Americans did not send an army to England.
Bobby A. Greene:
Just like the woman with tight skirt brought it on herself, eh?
Bobby A. Greene:
Which makes my point – there is no justification for mass punishment.
Bobby A. Greene:
That was indeed our low point, where many people were under illegal and brutal military rule. But we recovered.
Bobby A. Greene:
Yes – there were indeed men in those days, and they suffered much and did great deeds on our behalf. We rightly revere them.
Bobby A. Greene:
Not to denegrate Franklin’s contribution, the defeat and destruction of Burgoyne’s army in 1777 did a lot to pursuade the French that the war was winnable.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
K
koda
Guest
Technically, the British had every right to send troops here. The colonists were British subjects. Given time, the issues probably could have been worked out. It’s not like the British Parliament treated the colonies in a terrible way - it wasn’t Stalinist Russia.
I’ve always found it ironic that when the young nation found itself facing troubles from within that they had no qualms about passing the Alien and Sedetion Acts. If revolution was acceptable when the founding fathers did it, in theory it should have been acceptable for the subjects of the new nation to rebel as well.
The difference between a revolution and a rebellion is whether or not you win or lose.
I’ve always found it ironic that when the young nation found itself facing troubles from within that they had no qualms about passing the Alien and Sedetion Acts. If revolution was acceptable when the founding fathers did it, in theory it should have been acceptable for the subjects of the new nation to rebel as well.
The difference between a revolution and a rebellion is whether or not you win or lose.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You might say the government has the right to send the FBI – but not to break into your house, suspend your rights, and subjugate you and your neighbors by force – with no evidence that any of you personally committed a crime.
Abrogating the Charters, closing ports and sending troops to subjugate the people are all serious violations of the rights of Englismen.
Thomas Jefferson found it more than ironic – he found it outrageous. But the Alien and Sedition Act was passed some 20 years after the British sent troops and can hardly be cited as a CAUSE for them sending troops.
K
koda
Guest
vern humphrey:
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear - I wasn’t suggesting that the A&S Acts had anything to do with the Revolution, but merely noting the irony of so recent a group of revolutionaries having zero tolerance for a group so much like themsevles. It’s different when you are the target of the revolution.
- Status