LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Patriotica

Today they would be vaporized with drone launched Hellfire Missiles.
 
Last edited:
This would be the bunch of cowards that had to dress up as Indians to try and put the blame for their destruction of private property on someone else?
 
vetteman said:
Instead of a commercial disaster, it would be an environmental disaster today with millions in fines for staining the teeth of the harbors fish.:D
Click to expand...

Based on your postings regarding modern-day protesters, had you been in authority in 1773 you'd have had the hooligans executed. I see you as a dedicated loyalist.

It's an interesting juxtaposition to your self-proclaimed patriotism.
 
SeanH said:
This would be the bunch of cowards that had to dress up as Indians to try and put the blame for their destruction of private property on someone else?
Click to expand...

It was a tactical decision. The British sailors on board had been told all Native Americans were cannibals, in an attempt to discourage desertion. When confronted by feathers and tomahawks, they abandoned the ship and fled in terror.
 
A representation of the Gadsden Flag:

Gadsden.jpg


Christopher Gadsden was a successful Charleston, SC, merchant who began resisting British rule after word of the Townshend Acts reached American shores.

In 1769 he advertised that he was no longer a merchant representing British interests but was a "Country Factor" brokering local produce for export. By late June of '69, Gadsden had effected an agreement between planters, artisans, and mechanics which included calling for an end to trade with the British and the immediate halt of the importation of negro slaves from England. Within a few weeks, 142 signatures, including most common merchants in Charleston, were affixed to the agreement with only about 30 holdouts who became known as the irreconcilables. Those holdouts were exclusively loyal to the British, American wealthy merchants and politicians whose political and monied positions depended totally on continued harmony with Great Britain.

Gadsden has been referred to as "the Samuel Adams of South Carolina"; his reference in Boston had first guided his own peers to offer the same resolutions of no trade with Britain and the halt of the importation of slaves, and both Gadsden and Adam's sympathies were with the craftsmen, the planters, the laborers, and the poor. Indeed, in both Charleston and Boston and in every American colony and city which bore them, the great majority of the Sons of Liberty - the spark plugs of the American Revolution - came from the bulk of those groups.

Gadsden wrote:

In arbitrary governments, tyranny generally descends as it were from rank to rank, through the people, til' almost the whole weight of it , at last, falls upon the honest laborious farmer, mechanic, and day laborer. When this happens, it must make them poor, almost immediately poor indeed.
Click to expand...
 
Patriotica

I thought this was going to be a topic about fucking Betsy Ross.
 
bronzeage said:
It was a tactical decision. The British sailors on board had been told all Native Americans were cannibals, in an attempt to discourage desertion. When confronted by feathers and tomahawks, they abandoned the ship and fled in terror.
Click to expand...

And a means to hide there identities.
 
Samuel Adams,
The Rights of the Colonists
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence
to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772​



I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.

The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.

In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.

In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.

III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.

A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union.

The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.

First, "The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society."

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

"The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. "There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.

These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from the Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.) The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners after seven years' residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions [Page 422] of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of England."

Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had 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 inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three thousand miles' distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted.
 
Eyer, thanks for posting this. It is fascinating! What little I know of US history and it's genesis, is notes, especially as much of the rights were reacting to what had been denied to so many royal subjects.
 
I suggest reading OLIVER WISWELL by Kenneth Roberts. For goofs he wrote an 800 page novel about American Loyalists in the American Revolution. It doesn't flatter our side's conduct. The Patriots were social dregs and drunken rabble.
 
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
I suggest reading OLIVER WISWELL by Kenneth Roberts. For goofs he wrote an 800 page novel about American Loyalists in the American Revolution. It doesn't flatter our side's conduct. The Patriots were social dregs and drunken rabble.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why one of my ancestor's relatives appears on the list - sent to the Colonies to make good (or not). :D
 
oggbashan said:
Perhaps that's why one of my ancestor's relatives appears on the list - sent to the Colonies to make good (or not). :D
Click to expand...

Our revolution was a strange kettle of fish, I'm amazed it succeeded. Two-thirds of the colonists were contended and loyal to George III, and I estimate that half the Patriots weren't truly invested in independence; especially the Continental Congress and officer corps. The officers were more like Benedict Arnold than George Washington. Twas the Tories who kept the kettle bubbling, annoying the Scots who inhabited the Southern colonies, where the war was lost.
 
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
I suggest reading OLIVER WISWELL by Kenneth Roberts. For goofs he wrote an 800 page novel about American Loyalists in the American Revolution. It doesn't flatter our side's conduct. The Patriots were social dregs and drunken rabble.
Click to expand...

From my notes...

- in Boston, on or around February 25, 1770 [confirm date], a mob gathered at Ebenezer Richardson's home and began pelting it with rocks and bricks - Richardson was reputedly a known informant employed by the despised custom commissioners. 11 year-old Christopher Seider, a Boston school boy, was in the group and was killed by Richardson as Richardson shot from a window of his home to disperse the mob. Some have called the killing the first clear death of the nascent war.

- Boston Massacre: on March 5, 1770 in Boston, 9 British troops and a mob of about 50 or so Bostonians found themselves face-to-face at the troops barracks; whatever the cause, the British troops fired upon the mob and killed 5 of them: Samuel Gray, Crispus Attucks ("a hulking mulatto"), and innocent by-stander James Caldwell, 17, died instantly; 17 year-old Samuel Maverick died the next morning, and Patrick Carr died a week later. 6 others of the mob were seriously wounded. Gray, Attucks, Caldwell, and Maverick were soon interred in a single vault in the city's cemetery and Carr joined them after he died later.

- after the deadly confrontation, all out war threatened to break out, but Hutchinson arrived at the barracks and had Captain Thomas Preston (who was alleged to have given the order of "Fire! Damn you, fire! Be the consequences what will! ["alleged" because it's heresay and other words were testified to have been spoken) and the 8 other soldiers immediately jailed.

- [consider comparison to Kent State]

- citizens immediately demanded the regiments occupying Boston be withdrawn to Castle William in the harbor. Hutchinson agreed to withdraw 1 regiment, but first refused to remove the other. Later that day though, Hutchinson obeyed his council's unanimous opinion and ordered the 2nd regiment to Castle William, too.

- John Adams and Josiah Quincy defended Capt. Preston - Preston was acquitted. The two lawyers then also defended the 8 other soldiers. Adams described the mob during his summation to the jury:

"...most probably a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and out landish jack tars. And why we should scruple to call such a set of people a mob, I can't conceive, unless the name is too respectable for them. The sun is not about to stand still or go out, nor the rivers to dry up because there was a mob in Boston on the 5th of March."
Click to expand...

- 6 of the soldiers were acquitted; the other 2 were found guilty of manslaughter but were spared execution and instead were branded upon their thumbs.

- not a soul took to the Boston streets in protest of the outcome of the trial for the Boston Massacre.

- Samuel Adams, writing as "Vindex", published a series of articles generally portraying the event as a slaughter of innocents by depraved agents of an evil empire.
Click to expand...
 
...the greatest of the American colonies...the old Dominion [Virginia] had taken the road to revolution, and her leaders must soon avow their purposes before the world - take their chances, very narrow chances, of becoming founders of the greatest nation in the world, or of adorning with their fine, powered heads the gallows on Tower Hill, London.
Click to expand...

William E. Dodd, The Spirit of '76, Virginia Takes the Road to Revolution, pp. 134-135.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AG31
Hints and tips for navigating the forum side of Literotica - especially for newbies.
Replies
22
Views
2K
AG31
AG31
DMBFFF
Should I bother reading and/or watching The Handmaid's Tale?
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
DMBFFF
DMBFFF
T
Has erotic literature improved over the years? (Long thoughtful rant)
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
ElectricBlue
ElectricBlue
Asa
Sacrifice to the Witch (closed)
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Nouh_Bdee
Nouh_Bdee
T
"The end of civilization as we knew it" (open)
Replies
2
Views
1K
ManInTheLoft
M
Back
Top