Lest we forget why we celebrate the 4th of July . . . - Page 2

Although our disagreement with Britain led to armed conflict twice, the US owed much of its structure to the British systems established before them. Also, the British Magna Carta (prince John wasn't famous just for the Robin Hood story) is considered one of the founding democratic documents. The US in its founding also borrowed heavily from British structures (the Senate had many similarities to the House of Lords and remember the Senate wasn't an elected body until much later). In addition, we might well have been a Monarchy ourselves. There were many who wished Washington to be King George I. However, Washington had the ability to say no thereby establishing an elected presidency.

In respect to the Thai King, I have travelled extensively in Thailand and my significant other is Thai. Thai kings are greatly revered, even after death, because of a form of ancestor worship. The current Thai king though has rightfully earned much of his respect. As the first constitutional monarch of Thailand he has never had any political power directly. However, he and his family have used their position to advance numerous charitable and humanitarian causes. He has also worked to provide a moral compass in a country where the elected political officials can be extremely corrupt. As a side note, last year the king of Thailand was granted two patents. One was for a new technique of cloud seeding for rain. I forget what the other was for.

Cheers,

Kenneth

I could be wrong Andrew, but I think that since our President is both head of government and head of state and that our form of government has a different kind of separation of powers than the parliamentary form, many Americans have a hard time wrapping their heads around the Queen acting as Head of State, largely ceremonial in most governments—any real political power being extremely limited and only on the books for extreme circumstances.

Sir John Kerr, the Australian Governor-General (in theory acting as the Queen’s representative) did dissolve the Australian parliament back in the 70s when the Labor government headed by Gough Whitlam was unable to get a budget through the upper house (Senate). This was so controversial that Australians continue to consider very closely the powers held by their Head of State.

As for the argument that the Queen can act on her nominal powers, technically she is still the Head of State in Australia and, in theory could instruct her representative to dismiss Parliament. The Australians are so unconcerned about this possibility that they voted just a few short years ago to retain their current government, rejecting the idea of turning into a republic.

"Didn't we burn DC in 1812 or around then? and the battle of New Orleans was around the same time before peace was finally declared....?"

I am afraid you are mixing up two different wars. As Kirk Said, the American Revolution ended 1781, 8 years before the French revolution and 18 years before Napoleon declared himself emperor of France in 1799.
I will give you that England was busy fighting France during the war of 1812 and that may have made a difference in that war, but there was no such distraction during the Revolution.

The War of 1812 definitely could have gone either way...

With the US Government pretty much bankrupt and England fresh off their defeat of Bonaparte, we might just as easily been singing "Hail to the Queen" this Sunday !

One War of 1812 question for any history buffs out there. In 1814, England first made an offer of peace based on "utis posseditis". What the heck does that mean ?

Happy 4th - Great discussions ! Sorry to segway into the War of 1812 so much. Living near Baltimore, the War of 1812 is very much local history.

Or God Save the Queen--at least we know the tune.

Perhaps Michael or some other lawyer will answer, but uits posseditis is Latin and means (as best I can remember) to have possession—so the offer of peace was based on who had possession of territory. But I think that was not the basis for peace, so I’m somewhat confused.

This is usually a basis for drawing borders upon de-colonization (based, I think on existing pre-colonial borders)—I suppose that some of the members from the UK might know about this.

I’m sure that there is a great deal more, but my Latin is as extinct as the language itself.

Quite the contrary, inherited wealth is a logical consequence of the principle of private property rights (ie you can do what you want with your property, including passing it to your children.) There is nothing the least bit “un-American” about this. The British monarchy, on the other hand, involves wealth and power that is given to individuals solely via the coercive power of the British state. Big difference.

I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Wealthy people have access to more resources (including better lawyers), but there’s no difference in this respect between “inherited” wealth and wealth one earns oneself. And since the Queen is one of the world’s wealthiest women, your argument is that British monarchs could also murder more easily (I’m sure you’re aware of the crazy conspiracy theory that the British monarchy murdered Princess Di). Saying that a bad person “could” do bad things with wealth is no argument against wealth in general. The objection is to wealth obtained via State sanctioned theft.

Joseph Kennedy used his wealth to help his son, but the idea that one can simply “buy” the Presidency is false, else we would have Presidents Rockefeller and Forbes.

That’s an example of using government power to gain wealth, which is what is argued against in the case of the British Monarchy.

Let's not forget tiny San Marino, an enclave in northern Italy, which has been a republic since sometime in the 13th century and managed to stay completely independent despite Borgias, Garabaldi, Napoleon, and Mussolini.

Older still is Iceland whose National Assembly, the Alping, has been functioning since 999. While not a true republic and under Danish rule for 500 years until 1874, Iceland can lay claim to being the oldest surviving democracy in the world.

Something interesting. I can't confirm the source of the quote so I won't say it's absolutely true but, if it is true, then it's illustrative of how important the colonies were. I don't even know if George said this while in one of his sane or insane moments:

Actually, the slaughter of the Red Coats at New Orleans occured after a cease-fire had been declared.

Link





Yep!

Thanks Lew - I'm daft.

What, just like the UK?? Pompous statements like that make it appear that you believe the UK is still some anachronistic feudal state where everyone is downtrodden except for the chosen aristocratic few.

Here's the Sunday Times "Rich List" for 2003 - there's only one family/person listed who is a traditional aristocratic/monarchy type (the Duke of Westminster, unsuprisingly enough), the rest are all business men & women.


And Margaret Thatcher famously was the daughter of a greengrocer.

Historians would be more likely to know it. The usual spelling is "Uti Possidetis", meaning "as you now possess". Your definition is essentially correct; according to one of the major legal dictionaries, the term refers to "a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated".

M.

Cees Alons wrote:


Wasn't Holland heavily involved in the slave trade, though?



To a southerner, them's fightin' words.

I'm not an historian but I did major in history and everything Lew and Michael said seems to agree with what I remember.

Happy 4th!

Yes, unfortunately they were, although it was impossible to be a slave inside the territorial waters of the country.


I know.
But I used the word in that specific context to make another point.


Cees

Hey it's not as bad as calling Steve Christou a "limey Greek"....

so we WERE still fighting in 1812 as I said, I would have thought that capturing your capital was pretty important. The troops that did the fighting in the American wars were not the crack troops which had just wooped Boney's arse !

I do understand some Americans do get the dates of their wars mixed up...David you are from Boston...and the memorial in the centre of Boston Common records WW1 1917-1919.....jees, everyone knows it started in 1914 !! mind you , you were late for the next one as well

The 4th of July is famous though for the anniversary of the last war the USA won without the Brits being on your side !

WWI - won with the Brits
ww2 - won with the Brits
Korea - draw, with the Brits
Vietnam....oh dear
Grenada....beaten by students, not great
Somalia...emmm?
Gulf War 1 - win..with the Brits
Iraq - yep another win with the Brits

Mexican-American War - no British involvement

Spanish-American War - no British involvement


You're making it sound as if they're the same war - they're not.

The American Revolution (ie War of Independence) lasted from 1775 til 1783 when the treaty was signed officially ending hostilities. This was the time the Declaration of Independence was written and signed and why Americans celebrate the 4th of July.

The War of 1812 lasted from 1812-1815 and is a totally separate war.


?

I have to take issue with much of this... While the UK has not had the racial divides the States have had, that's fairly simple to accomplish because you're a much more homogeneous society. Still that hasn't stopped you from finding disagreements, even bordering on barbarism, with your own countrymen... Newsflash. The Scots and the Irish aren't crazy in love with the British, and the history of violence between the three is no less bloody than the history of our racial tensions. It is human nature to segregate into groups in an us versus them mentality, and since the U.K. lacks any true racial divisions, you've discovered religion to tear you apart. The U.K.s divisions have always been over religion, Catholic versus Protestant, and just because your religious divides are now cloaked in football jerseys and insensitive fight songs, rather than hoods and flaming crosses, doesn't make it any less real. Just because the violence is carried out by mobs with bats and clubs after the "Protestant team" plays the "catholic team", rather than lynch mobs with ropes after a few beers at the Moose lodge, doesn't make the violence any less deadly. Of course these religious zealots don't represent the MAJORITY off the U.K., but neither did the KKK represent the majority of Americans as you seem to suggest. Still the same, it doesn't suggest that the U.K. is any more socially enlightened than the U.S...

As far as health care... Nobody is denied medical treatment here either. Anybody, regardless of ability to pay, can walk into any emergency room and receive treatment... and they do... every day. There is a lot of hand ringing over how many Americans don't have health insurance. However, the uninsured aren't denied treatment as the argument seems to be spun... The problem is, some fail to realize that insurance is just that. It is a voluntary program to INSURE against the UNEXPECTED, and many of those uninsured (especially the young, single and healthy) feel like rolling the dice that they will not get sick, and would rather spend the insurance money elsewhere. I myself only recently purchased full insurance coverage after not having it for over ten years.... Why??? I didn't need it... I was healthy and didn't have a family to care about and wasn't worried about it...I also knew if anything REALLY bad happened, (like a car wreck) I would be treated... Despite the fact that I wasn't particularly concerned about my lack of health insurance (I could have EASILY afforded it, but didn't "need" it). There were A LOT of people (apparently some in other countries) who were terribly concerned about my under-insurance... To them I say, IM FINE!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!

[c]Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776[/c]

But on the other Hand, the Delay of this Declaration to this Time, has many great Advantages attending it. -- The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning tho weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. -- Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. -- This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago.

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

Adams, however, was not without his humor:

Curious: Adams says the 2nd day of July 1776 would be remembered, yet now it's the 4th. IIRC, because most signed the Declaration on the 4th rather than the 2nd? And didn't someone sign it very much later (i.e. a number of years later)?

The delegates had signed the Declaration by the 3rd, and the 4th was the day of public announcement (i.e. the "press release").

From A User's Guide to the Declaration of Independence:


Actually, only John Hancock and Secretary Charles Thomson signed the declaration after approval by the Continental Congress. The majority of the signers penned their names on August 2, 1776 but a few signed later than that such as Matthew Thornton who I believe signed in November. Although there may be some controversy about this as far as I know, the last signer was Thomas McKean in 1781.

P.S. - The reason New York delayed was because the New York delegation to the Continental Congress never, ever received any instructions on any vote from the government of New York (it seems nothing has changed in 228 years). The New York delegation took their own personal initiative to sign anyway after some debate. The fact that Francis Lewis's wife was taken prisoner, his sons volunteered to the Continental Army, and most of his enormous estate destroyed thus ruining him financially for the rest of his life was no small factor.