This is a legal document, which makes it a pain in the ass to read. Essentially a listing of grievances and violations of rights, with a promise to return to peaceful and happy relations if the situation is rectified. Perhaps most important, it reiterates the need for all Legislative power within the colonies to reside within the colonies-- as once again, true represenation in Parliament is currently lacking and impossible anyway. The Crown would have the authority to dictate some international economic agreements, but that's it. Independence is on its way.
Many of the complaints worked their way into the Bill of Rights-- specifically, the quartering of soldiers, the right to a fair and local trial by jury, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition for the redress of grievances. Most complaints are referred to specific Acts of Parliament that must be redressed.
There were three acts specifically levied against the "province of Massachusetts-bay". No wonder they moved the whole thing to Philadelphia.
And again, one of the complaints was the establishment of the "Roman Catholic Religion in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger, from so great a dissimilarity of Religion, law, and government, of the neighboring British colonies by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France." Did we give Quebec back to France after the war as a consolation prize? And c'mon, guys, we mean you no harm. Simmer down.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
The Rights Of The Colonists (November 20, 1772)
Ben Franklin, summarizing the current state of the colonies, as an introduction to the resolution for the English public at large:
The colonists have grown accustomed to being left alone, and so appreciated the flexible arrangement with the English Crown that they had adopted many English customs and adapted to many English requests. The Stamp Act, however, ruined the comity, and the colonists responded with a general boycott. The repeal of the Stamp Act, save for the tax on tea, was met with the end of the boycott, save on tea-- and even that was expected to be resolved soon.
The imposition of the English bureaucracy in establishing this one rule, however, grew so intrusive that more forceful responses were required. An enormous black market developed whereby French and Dutch tea is drunk nearly exclusively in the colonies. The loss of benefits to the Crown are enormous-- and for what? Simply selling English tea to the colonists ought to be beneficial enough, and yet they are put upon to the breaking point.
The rights of the colonists begin with the natural rights of all men, as expressed (nearly word for word-- including the phrase "life, liberty, and property") by John Locke. Civil society is a ceding of some of these natural rights-- with the consent of the governed-- to a civil authority. And as long as men aren't complled to remain in the society against their will, this is all fine.
One of the most important natural rights that must in all cases be protected by civil society is the right to freely worship as one sees fit. (Except in the case of the Papists, of course. The problem there, apparently, is that when the religious authority excommunicated a political leader from the Church, it also forced his removal from civil office. This cannot stand. [I agree.])
The civil leaders work for the people. They are very much like employees. So the greatest injustice is done when one of these leaders aggrandizes himself financially or by usurping additional power, and thereby establishes tyranny. He would do this thinking is has some special ability to exert civil authority that the entire remainder of the public lacks. He is mistaken-- many, many others could do the job well. There is no shortage of decent representatives.
This grand agreement has been codified in the Magna Charta for centuries.
In the case of the American colonies, they of course possess all the natural rights of man. And this includes the right to establish for their own society a Legislative power-- including the restriction that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people."
Given all this, the British House of Commons can have no legitimate authority over the colonists. First, the colonists are not currently represented there. And second, it is impossible that they could be properly represented there. The population is too large for the tiny representation the House would be willing to allow. Moreover, "[h]ad the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there." The situation, then, is ripe for abuse, and treachery. "The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatement will or ought to be borne, is submitted."
-----------------------
The Revolution is already baked into the cake. There is no getting around it.
The English bureaucracy charged with enforcing the Stamp Act/Tea Act are the SEC and EPA rolled into one.
It is still true that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people." But it apparently has the power to tax to its heart's content, so long as it remains representative. Sigh.
The word Papists makes me giggle every time I see it.
The colonists have grown accustomed to being left alone, and so appreciated the flexible arrangement with the English Crown that they had adopted many English customs and adapted to many English requests. The Stamp Act, however, ruined the comity, and the colonists responded with a general boycott. The repeal of the Stamp Act, save for the tax on tea, was met with the end of the boycott, save on tea-- and even that was expected to be resolved soon.
The imposition of the English bureaucracy in establishing this one rule, however, grew so intrusive that more forceful responses were required. An enormous black market developed whereby French and Dutch tea is drunk nearly exclusively in the colonies. The loss of benefits to the Crown are enormous-- and for what? Simply selling English tea to the colonists ought to be beneficial enough, and yet they are put upon to the breaking point.
This nation, and the other nations of Europe, may thereby learn, with more certainty, the grounds of a dissension that possibly may, sooner or later, have consequences interesting to them all.Sam Adams:
The rights of the colonists begin with the natural rights of all men, as expressed (nearly word for word-- including the phrase "life, liberty, and property") by John Locke. Civil society is a ceding of some of these natural rights-- with the consent of the governed-- to a civil authority. And as long as men aren't complled to remain in the society against their will, this is all fine.
One of the most important natural rights that must in all cases be protected by civil society is the right to freely worship as one sees fit. (Except in the case of the Papists, of course. The problem there, apparently, is that when the religious authority excommunicated a political leader from the Church, it also forced his removal from civil office. This cannot stand. [I agree.])
The civil leaders work for the people. They are very much like employees. So the greatest injustice is done when one of these leaders aggrandizes himself financially or by usurping additional power, and thereby establishes tyranny. He would do this thinking is has some special ability to exert civil authority that the entire remainder of the public lacks. He is mistaken-- many, many others could do the job well. There is no shortage of decent representatives.
This grand agreement has been codified in the Magna Charta for centuries.
In the case of the American colonies, they of course possess all the natural rights of man. And this includes the right to establish for their own society a Legislative power-- including the restriction that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people."
Given all this, the British House of Commons can have no legitimate authority over the colonists. First, the colonists are not currently represented there. And second, it is impossible that they could be properly represented there. The population is too large for the tiny representation the House would be willing to allow. Moreover, "[h]ad the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there." The situation, then, is ripe for abuse, and treachery. "The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatement will or ought to be borne, is submitted."
-----------------------
The Revolution is already baked into the cake. There is no getting around it.
The English bureaucracy charged with enforcing the Stamp Act/Tea Act are the SEC and EPA rolled into one.
It is still true that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people." But it apparently has the power to tax to its heart's content, so long as it remains representative. Sigh.
The word Papists makes me giggle every time I see it.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Resolutions Of The Stamp Act Congress (October 19, 1765)
No taxation without representation!
-------------------------
The language is exceedingly polite, and the entire argument is delivered explicitly from their recognized status as subjects of the British Crown. C'mon guys, flip the king the bird!
The seeds of independence are already sown, however, as they hint that representation in Parliament is nigh impossible.
I like the argument that the Crown was already profiting enormously from their trade with the colonists, and that any taxation on that commerce would only lessen the benefits already enjoyed. The Laffer curve lives!
-------------------------
The language is exceedingly polite, and the entire argument is delivered explicitly from their recognized status as subjects of the British Crown. C'mon guys, flip the king the bird!
The seeds of independence are already sown, however, as they hint that representation in Parliament is nigh impossible.
That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.Even this early, all of the arguments are couched in terms of securing the "rights and liberties" to which they are entitled. Idle thought: have we gone astray by bleating about freedom all the time instead of liberty? "Freedom" has the connotation, for me at least, of a bird in flight, entirely unbound. This is the image attached to FDR's invocation of positive rights: freedom from "the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment." "Liberty", on the other hand, connotes self-direction, but makes no promises against the entirely natural slings and arrows of life. "Pursuit of happiness" indeed. These guys were good.
I like the argument that the Crown was already profiting enormously from their trade with the colonists, and that any taxation on that commerce would only lessen the benefits already enjoyed. The Laffer curve lives!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)