HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY

Wwflagfireworksmodgif

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

These are the words that begin the document that is the basis for our Fourth of July celebration. The final version signed on July 4, 1776 in Philadelphia by the Second Continental Congress did not end or begin the Revolutionary War, but simply and clearly stated that we are a free country–consequently severing our ties with the British crown for a long list of reasons.  Everyone should read the document in its entirety at some time in their lives, and feel in their hearts what those courageous men were feeling the day they signed their names to such a world-shattering piece of paper.            Wwlibertybellgif

The first declaration was greeted with bell ringing and bonfires in Philadelphia. The anniversary a year later was greeted by celebratons and fireworks in the same city.  The holiday spread rapidly and eventually became our day of leisure with barbecues and swimming pools and picnics, topped by the tradtional fireworks. 

I hope everyone has a wonderful, joyous, and safe Fourth, but I also hope that some time during the day, you stop and give thanks to the fathers of this country, the men of wisdom and courage who stood up and shouted THIS IS WRONG and then—did something about it. We owe them to never forget, and to follow bravely in their footsteps, always bearing in mind that all men are created equal, with the right to pursue freedom and happiness.    Wwbbqgif

48 thoughts on “HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY”

  1. I agree with you, Pat. It was good these men owned the fortitude it took to stand up and say ‘THIS IS WRONG’ to the largest nation in the world. And their bravery, along with all those that died to free our nation from Great Britain should be honored and remembered.
    But, in all of their efforts to assure freedom, equality through the Creator and endowed rights, I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t abolish slavery too. IMHO, it would have been a simple thing to do then, compared to the effort it took 80 years later after slavery had become a interracial part of our economy. How much stronger would our nation would be now, if the Civil War hadn’t happened? If Sherman hadn’t burned the South and the thousands and thousands of men, women and children that died, hadn’t. The Civil War was about more than freeing a race of people, it was about a power struggle between states. But if our founding fathers hadn’t allowed slavery to continue, and we had toiled our own land rather than relegating it to the backs of those we said had no souls, would the power struggle have ignited into a war? A war that, in the end, no one won and everyone lost.
    Nina, who is climbing down off her soap box and remembering to find herself blessed to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Reply
  2. I agree with you, Pat. It was good these men owned the fortitude it took to stand up and say ‘THIS IS WRONG’ to the largest nation in the world. And their bravery, along with all those that died to free our nation from Great Britain should be honored and remembered.
    But, in all of their efforts to assure freedom, equality through the Creator and endowed rights, I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t abolish slavery too. IMHO, it would have been a simple thing to do then, compared to the effort it took 80 years later after slavery had become a interracial part of our economy. How much stronger would our nation would be now, if the Civil War hadn’t happened? If Sherman hadn’t burned the South and the thousands and thousands of men, women and children that died, hadn’t. The Civil War was about more than freeing a race of people, it was about a power struggle between states. But if our founding fathers hadn’t allowed slavery to continue, and we had toiled our own land rather than relegating it to the backs of those we said had no souls, would the power struggle have ignited into a war? A war that, in the end, no one won and everyone lost.
    Nina, who is climbing down off her soap box and remembering to find herself blessed to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Reply
  3. I agree with you, Pat. It was good these men owned the fortitude it took to stand up and say ‘THIS IS WRONG’ to the largest nation in the world. And their bravery, along with all those that died to free our nation from Great Britain should be honored and remembered.
    But, in all of their efforts to assure freedom, equality through the Creator and endowed rights, I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t abolish slavery too. IMHO, it would have been a simple thing to do then, compared to the effort it took 80 years later after slavery had become a interracial part of our economy. How much stronger would our nation would be now, if the Civil War hadn’t happened? If Sherman hadn’t burned the South and the thousands and thousands of men, women and children that died, hadn’t. The Civil War was about more than freeing a race of people, it was about a power struggle between states. But if our founding fathers hadn’t allowed slavery to continue, and we had toiled our own land rather than relegating it to the backs of those we said had no souls, would the power struggle have ignited into a war? A war that, in the end, no one won and everyone lost.
    Nina, who is climbing down off her soap box and remembering to find herself blessed to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Reply
  4. Hear, hear, Pat! As you say, all Americans should read the Declaration of Independence, and more than once.
    As to banning slavery then–yes, it would have been a better and freer country then, but liberty and justice for ALL was too advanced a concept for most people in those days. Freedom is an ongoing, evolving process, which is why we have the Bill of Rights and constitutional amendments.
    Perfect liberty and democracy are always a little over the horizon–but it’s good for us to keep working toward such a noble goal.
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  5. Hear, hear, Pat! As you say, all Americans should read the Declaration of Independence, and more than once.
    As to banning slavery then–yes, it would have been a better and freer country then, but liberty and justice for ALL was too advanced a concept for most people in those days. Freedom is an ongoing, evolving process, which is why we have the Bill of Rights and constitutional amendments.
    Perfect liberty and democracy are always a little over the horizon–but it’s good for us to keep working toward such a noble goal.
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  6. Hear, hear, Pat! As you say, all Americans should read the Declaration of Independence, and more than once.
    As to banning slavery then–yes, it would have been a better and freer country then, but liberty and justice for ALL was too advanced a concept for most people in those days. Freedom is an ongoing, evolving process, which is why we have the Bill of Rights and constitutional amendments.
    Perfect liberty and democracy are always a little over the horizon–but it’s good for us to keep working toward such a noble goal.
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  7. “As to banning slavery then–yes, it would have been a better and freer country then, but liberty and justice for ALL was too advanced a concept for most people in those days.”
    Yes. We cannot and should not apply social standards and ideologies retrospectively. We are all conditioned by the social mores of our own time and place.
    Having said that, the movement to ban slavery began in Britain around 1790, and the Act of Parliament banning the slave trade was finally passed, after several determined attempts, in 1807, nearly 200 years ago.
    In 1833, slavery was made illegal in Britain and its dependencies, and all slaves were freed.
    One thing that seems bizarre to me was that in the British Isles, Friends (Quakers) and other non-conformists were in the forefront of abolitionism, yet the Quaker communities of North America, who had settled there in order to escape religious persecution in 17th-century perfectly comfortable with slave ownership.

    Reply
  8. “As to banning slavery then–yes, it would have been a better and freer country then, but liberty and justice for ALL was too advanced a concept for most people in those days.”
    Yes. We cannot and should not apply social standards and ideologies retrospectively. We are all conditioned by the social mores of our own time and place.
    Having said that, the movement to ban slavery began in Britain around 1790, and the Act of Parliament banning the slave trade was finally passed, after several determined attempts, in 1807, nearly 200 years ago.
    In 1833, slavery was made illegal in Britain and its dependencies, and all slaves were freed.
    One thing that seems bizarre to me was that in the British Isles, Friends (Quakers) and other non-conformists were in the forefront of abolitionism, yet the Quaker communities of North America, who had settled there in order to escape religious persecution in 17th-century perfectly comfortable with slave ownership.

    Reply
  9. “As to banning slavery then–yes, it would have been a better and freer country then, but liberty and justice for ALL was too advanced a concept for most people in those days.”
    Yes. We cannot and should not apply social standards and ideologies retrospectively. We are all conditioned by the social mores of our own time and place.
    Having said that, the movement to ban slavery began in Britain around 1790, and the Act of Parliament banning the slave trade was finally passed, after several determined attempts, in 1807, nearly 200 years ago.
    In 1833, slavery was made illegal in Britain and its dependencies, and all slaves were freed.
    One thing that seems bizarre to me was that in the British Isles, Friends (Quakers) and other non-conformists were in the forefront of abolitionism, yet the Quaker communities of North America, who had settled there in order to escape religious persecution in 17th-century perfectly comfortable with slave ownership.

    Reply
  10. Quakers were in the forefront of the American abolitionist movement.The first antislavery petition and the first antislavery society in America came from the Quaker community. And certainly many of the most influential voices in the abolitionist movement–The Grimke sisters, Lucretia Mott, John Greenleaf Whittier, to name a
    few–were Quakers. I grant that it is hard to understand William Penn’s attitude toward slavery, but there were Friends in the New World adamantly opposed to slavery as early as the 1680s.

    Reply
  11. Quakers were in the forefront of the American abolitionist movement.The first antislavery petition and the first antislavery society in America came from the Quaker community. And certainly many of the most influential voices in the abolitionist movement–The Grimke sisters, Lucretia Mott, John Greenleaf Whittier, to name a
    few–were Quakers. I grant that it is hard to understand William Penn’s attitude toward slavery, but there were Friends in the New World adamantly opposed to slavery as early as the 1680s.

    Reply
  12. Quakers were in the forefront of the American abolitionist movement.The first antislavery petition and the first antislavery society in America came from the Quaker community. And certainly many of the most influential voices in the abolitionist movement–The Grimke sisters, Lucretia Mott, John Greenleaf Whittier, to name a
    few–were Quakers. I grant that it is hard to understand William Penn’s attitude toward slavery, but there were Friends in the New World adamantly opposed to slavery as early as the 1680s.

    Reply
  13. Thank you, Wylene, for that information! I am glad to hear it.
    Many of the Quakers who left England and Wales in the 17th century did so in part because of the legal problems caused by their refusal on principle to accept different ranks of society, even the apparently silly issue of refusing to doff their hats when in the presence of a ‘more important’ person. It has always seemed very strange to me that any Quaker, British or American, could have squared it with his conscience to own slaves, as opposed to employing paid servants. There is no doubt at all that some of them did, but I am relieved to hear that, as in Britain, there were many who were dedicated to stamping out that social evil.
    A depressing, though trivial, little point: after the abolition of slavery here in 1833, slave-owners (for example, the wealthy plantation owners in the West Indies) were awarded financial compensation by the government: the freed SLAVES, however, were offered no compensation. 🙁
    Yet in spite of all the bad stuff, I do think that this country – Great Britain – deserves some credit for having been in the vanguard of abolishing slavery. It is very easy to make sweeping generalisations about societies, now and in the past, but closer scrutiny is required, as you have just illustrated by correcting my incomplete understanding of the role of American Quakers.
    🙂

    Reply
  14. Thank you, Wylene, for that information! I am glad to hear it.
    Many of the Quakers who left England and Wales in the 17th century did so in part because of the legal problems caused by their refusal on principle to accept different ranks of society, even the apparently silly issue of refusing to doff their hats when in the presence of a ‘more important’ person. It has always seemed very strange to me that any Quaker, British or American, could have squared it with his conscience to own slaves, as opposed to employing paid servants. There is no doubt at all that some of them did, but I am relieved to hear that, as in Britain, there were many who were dedicated to stamping out that social evil.
    A depressing, though trivial, little point: after the abolition of slavery here in 1833, slave-owners (for example, the wealthy plantation owners in the West Indies) were awarded financial compensation by the government: the freed SLAVES, however, were offered no compensation. 🙁
    Yet in spite of all the bad stuff, I do think that this country – Great Britain – deserves some credit for having been in the vanguard of abolishing slavery. It is very easy to make sweeping generalisations about societies, now and in the past, but closer scrutiny is required, as you have just illustrated by correcting my incomplete understanding of the role of American Quakers.
    🙂

    Reply
  15. Thank you, Wylene, for that information! I am glad to hear it.
    Many of the Quakers who left England and Wales in the 17th century did so in part because of the legal problems caused by their refusal on principle to accept different ranks of society, even the apparently silly issue of refusing to doff their hats when in the presence of a ‘more important’ person. It has always seemed very strange to me that any Quaker, British or American, could have squared it with his conscience to own slaves, as opposed to employing paid servants. There is no doubt at all that some of them did, but I am relieved to hear that, as in Britain, there were many who were dedicated to stamping out that social evil.
    A depressing, though trivial, little point: after the abolition of slavery here in 1833, slave-owners (for example, the wealthy plantation owners in the West Indies) were awarded financial compensation by the government: the freed SLAVES, however, were offered no compensation. 🙁
    Yet in spite of all the bad stuff, I do think that this country – Great Britain – deserves some credit for having been in the vanguard of abolishing slavery. It is very easy to make sweeping generalisations about societies, now and in the past, but closer scrutiny is required, as you have just illustrated by correcting my incomplete understanding of the role of American Quakers.
    🙂

    Reply
  16. “Yet in spite of all the bad stuff, I do think that this country – Great Britain – deserves some credit for having been in the vanguard of abolishing slavery. ”
    Absolutely, AgTigress. In fact, I’m dealing with exactly this material in my current book. 🙂 It’s a pretty amazing story.
    And as to Quakers never doffing their hats: at the funeral of Thomas Clarkson, the Anglican minister and abolitionist who was perhaps the single most important figure int the abolition movement(working closely with the Quakers)–at that funeral–the many Quakers in attendance took off their hats in tribute.
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  17. “Yet in spite of all the bad stuff, I do think that this country – Great Britain – deserves some credit for having been in the vanguard of abolishing slavery. ”
    Absolutely, AgTigress. In fact, I’m dealing with exactly this material in my current book. 🙂 It’s a pretty amazing story.
    And as to Quakers never doffing their hats: at the funeral of Thomas Clarkson, the Anglican minister and abolitionist who was perhaps the single most important figure int the abolition movement(working closely with the Quakers)–at that funeral–the many Quakers in attendance took off their hats in tribute.
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  18. “Yet in spite of all the bad stuff, I do think that this country – Great Britain – deserves some credit for having been in the vanguard of abolishing slavery. ”
    Absolutely, AgTigress. In fact, I’m dealing with exactly this material in my current book. 🙂 It’s a pretty amazing story.
    And as to Quakers never doffing their hats: at the funeral of Thomas Clarkson, the Anglican minister and abolitionist who was perhaps the single most important figure int the abolition movement(working closely with the Quakers)–at that funeral–the many Quakers in attendance took off their hats in tribute.
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  19. “..at that funeral–the many Quakers in attendance took off their hats in tribute.”
    Yes – but, I am sure, as a tribute to personal virtue and character, not simply to an accident of birth; to status earned, not casually inherited.
    🙂
    I shall look out eagerly for the book; what a great theme! The whole period of the Enlightenment is full of amazing and inspiring stories.
    🙂

    Reply
  20. “..at that funeral–the many Quakers in attendance took off their hats in tribute.”
    Yes – but, I am sure, as a tribute to personal virtue and character, not simply to an accident of birth; to status earned, not casually inherited.
    🙂
    I shall look out eagerly for the book; what a great theme! The whole period of the Enlightenment is full of amazing and inspiring stories.
    🙂

    Reply
  21. “..at that funeral–the many Quakers in attendance took off their hats in tribute.”
    Yes – but, I am sure, as a tribute to personal virtue and character, not simply to an accident of birth; to status earned, not casually inherited.
    🙂
    I shall look out eagerly for the book; what a great theme! The whole period of the Enlightenment is full of amazing and inspiring stories.
    🙂

    Reply
  22. what a wonderful tangent my simple post has taken! thank you.
    Although in my cynicism (I’ve done the research but my memory isn’t strong enough to remember the historical discussion), I believe several of those free-thinking gentlemen did discuss freedom of slaves, but that would also mean freedom of indentured servants, and a radical overthrow of far more than these few men could possibly agree on at that conference table. So they kept it to the basic argument with the crown and saved the rest for later.
    Unfortunately, it was much later. A struggling country–especially one made of as many diverse views as this one–has many, many problems with which to deal, and slavery simply wasn’t one they felt qualified to deal with on a national basis, leaving it up to states as we do many ugly issues today.
    And of course, one of those many problems was another war with the British in 1812. So the struggle for survival for an infant country came first.
    Just try imagining forcing all our great congressman today to simply decide between Creationism and Evolution. I’m just thrilled our forefathers could agree on independence for the country.
    And you will remember, they didn’t mean women were equal either.

    Reply
  23. what a wonderful tangent my simple post has taken! thank you.
    Although in my cynicism (I’ve done the research but my memory isn’t strong enough to remember the historical discussion), I believe several of those free-thinking gentlemen did discuss freedom of slaves, but that would also mean freedom of indentured servants, and a radical overthrow of far more than these few men could possibly agree on at that conference table. So they kept it to the basic argument with the crown and saved the rest for later.
    Unfortunately, it was much later. A struggling country–especially one made of as many diverse views as this one–has many, many problems with which to deal, and slavery simply wasn’t one they felt qualified to deal with on a national basis, leaving it up to states as we do many ugly issues today.
    And of course, one of those many problems was another war with the British in 1812. So the struggle for survival for an infant country came first.
    Just try imagining forcing all our great congressman today to simply decide between Creationism and Evolution. I’m just thrilled our forefathers could agree on independence for the country.
    And you will remember, they didn’t mean women were equal either.

    Reply
  24. what a wonderful tangent my simple post has taken! thank you.
    Although in my cynicism (I’ve done the research but my memory isn’t strong enough to remember the historical discussion), I believe several of those free-thinking gentlemen did discuss freedom of slaves, but that would also mean freedom of indentured servants, and a radical overthrow of far more than these few men could possibly agree on at that conference table. So they kept it to the basic argument with the crown and saved the rest for later.
    Unfortunately, it was much later. A struggling country–especially one made of as many diverse views as this one–has many, many problems with which to deal, and slavery simply wasn’t one they felt qualified to deal with on a national basis, leaving it up to states as we do many ugly issues today.
    And of course, one of those many problems was another war with the British in 1812. So the struggle for survival for an infant country came first.
    Just try imagining forcing all our great congressman today to simply decide between Creationism and Evolution. I’m just thrilled our forefathers could agree on independence for the country.
    And you will remember, they didn’t mean women were equal either.

    Reply
  25. From tal, who proudly claims a VERY remote collateral descent from one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams:
    One must remember that the Founding Fathers were attempting to PUT TOGETHER a nation from thirteen separate colonies, any one of which could have torpedoed the enterprise by refusing to join. So the slaveholding colonies had veto power, in effect, over the new union; and though Jefferson and Adams did attempt to include the abolition of slavery, they had to give up the effort. And they did phase out the slave trade.
    The Quakers were also one of the main moving forces behind the Underground Railroad which smuggled escaped slaves north into Canada.
    There’s a great story about William Penn talking to King Charles (it would have been the Second, I believe) and refusing to remove his hat in the King’s presence. The King removed his own hat, saying that one of them at least ought to uncover.
    Happy Independence Day to All!

    Reply
  26. From tal, who proudly claims a VERY remote collateral descent from one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams:
    One must remember that the Founding Fathers were attempting to PUT TOGETHER a nation from thirteen separate colonies, any one of which could have torpedoed the enterprise by refusing to join. So the slaveholding colonies had veto power, in effect, over the new union; and though Jefferson and Adams did attempt to include the abolition of slavery, they had to give up the effort. And they did phase out the slave trade.
    The Quakers were also one of the main moving forces behind the Underground Railroad which smuggled escaped slaves north into Canada.
    There’s a great story about William Penn talking to King Charles (it would have been the Second, I believe) and refusing to remove his hat in the King’s presence. The King removed his own hat, saying that one of them at least ought to uncover.
    Happy Independence Day to All!

    Reply
  27. From tal, who proudly claims a VERY remote collateral descent from one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams:
    One must remember that the Founding Fathers were attempting to PUT TOGETHER a nation from thirteen separate colonies, any one of which could have torpedoed the enterprise by refusing to join. So the slaveholding colonies had veto power, in effect, over the new union; and though Jefferson and Adams did attempt to include the abolition of slavery, they had to give up the effort. And they did phase out the slave trade.
    The Quakers were also one of the main moving forces behind the Underground Railroad which smuggled escaped slaves north into Canada.
    There’s a great story about William Penn talking to King Charles (it would have been the Second, I believe) and refusing to remove his hat in the King’s presence. The King removed his own hat, saying that one of them at least ought to uncover.
    Happy Independence Day to All!

    Reply
  28. As an English and Canadian woman, I’ll keep out of the debate, and simply wish you all a very happy celebration of independence.
    Oh heck, In the cause of accuracy, I have to point out that President Madison declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Now the causes are complex and go back to the Revolution, but the War of 1812 can’t be described as a war of British aggression on a fledgling nation.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  29. As an English and Canadian woman, I’ll keep out of the debate, and simply wish you all a very happy celebration of independence.
    Oh heck, In the cause of accuracy, I have to point out that President Madison declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Now the causes are complex and go back to the Revolution, but the War of 1812 can’t be described as a war of British aggression on a fledgling nation.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  30. As an English and Canadian woman, I’ll keep out of the debate, and simply wish you all a very happy celebration of independence.
    Oh heck, In the cause of accuracy, I have to point out that President Madison declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Now the causes are complex and go back to the Revolution, but the War of 1812 can’t be described as a war of British aggression on a fledgling nation.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  31. War of 1812: this is rather bypassed in British history teaching because (1) we didn’t do too well and (2) we were awfully busy with other conflicts at the time, which mattered rather more to us…
    😉 😀

    Reply
  32. War of 1812: this is rather bypassed in British history teaching because (1) we didn’t do too well and (2) we were awfully busy with other conflicts at the time, which mattered rather more to us…
    😉 😀

    Reply
  33. War of 1812: this is rather bypassed in British history teaching because (1) we didn’t do too well and (2) we were awfully busy with other conflicts at the time, which mattered rather more to us…
    😉 😀

    Reply
  34. Sure, Tal, I know about impressment, but there were irritants on both sides, as there always are leading up to a war. I’m just pointing out who declared it. The British didn’t want war at that time because they were heavily occupied with Napoleon.
    Pierre Berton’s Flames Across the Border is a rather hilarious, at times, account of the war. sometimes it’s more like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It’s generally accepted that the US didn’t have a well organized military force at the time — America was, as you say, still in the process of pulling together the ex-colonies, all of whom had their own interests and angles — and Britain had been sending officers who were a liability in the Peninsula over to Canada where they could do less damage. They thought.
    I didn’t know this when I put one of my career military heroes there. He was, of course, an exception.
    American-Canadian history is very interesting. I’ve only recently taken an interest.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  35. Sure, Tal, I know about impressment, but there were irritants on both sides, as there always are leading up to a war. I’m just pointing out who declared it. The British didn’t want war at that time because they were heavily occupied with Napoleon.
    Pierre Berton’s Flames Across the Border is a rather hilarious, at times, account of the war. sometimes it’s more like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It’s generally accepted that the US didn’t have a well organized military force at the time — America was, as you say, still in the process of pulling together the ex-colonies, all of whom had their own interests and angles — and Britain had been sending officers who were a liability in the Peninsula over to Canada where they could do less damage. They thought.
    I didn’t know this when I put one of my career military heroes there. He was, of course, an exception.
    American-Canadian history is very interesting. I’ve only recently taken an interest.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  36. Sure, Tal, I know about impressment, but there were irritants on both sides, as there always are leading up to a war. I’m just pointing out who declared it. The British didn’t want war at that time because they were heavily occupied with Napoleon.
    Pierre Berton’s Flames Across the Border is a rather hilarious, at times, account of the war. sometimes it’s more like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It’s generally accepted that the US didn’t have a well organized military force at the time — America was, as you say, still in the process of pulling together the ex-colonies, all of whom had their own interests and angles — and Britain had been sending officers who were a liability in the Peninsula over to Canada where they could do less damage. They thought.
    I didn’t know this when I put one of my career military heroes there. He was, of course, an exception.
    American-Canadian history is very interesting. I’ve only recently taken an interest.
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  37. I had known they had at least one incompetent idiot in Canada, I hadn’t realized the British were shipping them over here deliberately! That’s just too good.
    True, the US declared war, but think of it in today’s terms. Would the US actually bother declaring war against some poor African country that was robbing its ships and kidnapping sailors?
    It would be an interesting study to see how often it’s the smaller, less developed country that declares war as an act of self-defense. I suspect we’d find the big ones just kind of move in and take over with a “war, what war?” attitude.

    Reply
  38. I had known they had at least one incompetent idiot in Canada, I hadn’t realized the British were shipping them over here deliberately! That’s just too good.
    True, the US declared war, but think of it in today’s terms. Would the US actually bother declaring war against some poor African country that was robbing its ships and kidnapping sailors?
    It would be an interesting study to see how often it’s the smaller, less developed country that declares war as an act of self-defense. I suspect we’d find the big ones just kind of move in and take over with a “war, what war?” attitude.

    Reply
  39. I had known they had at least one incompetent idiot in Canada, I hadn’t realized the British were shipping them over here deliberately! That’s just too good.
    True, the US declared war, but think of it in today’s terms. Would the US actually bother declaring war against some poor African country that was robbing its ships and kidnapping sailors?
    It would be an interesting study to see how often it’s the smaller, less developed country that declares war as an act of self-defense. I suspect we’d find the big ones just kind of move in and take over with a “war, what war?” attitude.

    Reply
  40. Just to add a word about that hat-doffing anecdote between William Penn and Charles II:
    When William Penn cited his beliefs and refused to remove his hat in the presence of Charles II (which, Friend or no, seems a trifle ungrateful, considering how the king had already granted him most of Pennsylvania), Charles would not take offense. Famous for his good manners, it was more important to him to put a guest at ease than to insist on protocol, no matter how scandalized his fellow courtiers were by such perceived arrogance by a subject.
    “In the presence of the king,” Charles said mildly, “it is customary that only one head in the room remained covered.” And with that, he promptly removed his hat.
    All of which proves one reason why Charles II kept his head, while his father lost his. 🙂
    Susan/Miranda, clearly deep in Restoration research

    Reply
  41. Just to add a word about that hat-doffing anecdote between William Penn and Charles II:
    When William Penn cited his beliefs and refused to remove his hat in the presence of Charles II (which, Friend or no, seems a trifle ungrateful, considering how the king had already granted him most of Pennsylvania), Charles would not take offense. Famous for his good manners, it was more important to him to put a guest at ease than to insist on protocol, no matter how scandalized his fellow courtiers were by such perceived arrogance by a subject.
    “In the presence of the king,” Charles said mildly, “it is customary that only one head in the room remained covered.” And with that, he promptly removed his hat.
    All of which proves one reason why Charles II kept his head, while his father lost his. 🙂
    Susan/Miranda, clearly deep in Restoration research

    Reply
  42. Just to add a word about that hat-doffing anecdote between William Penn and Charles II:
    When William Penn cited his beliefs and refused to remove his hat in the presence of Charles II (which, Friend or no, seems a trifle ungrateful, considering how the king had already granted him most of Pennsylvania), Charles would not take offense. Famous for his good manners, it was more important to him to put a guest at ease than to insist on protocol, no matter how scandalized his fellow courtiers were by such perceived arrogance by a subject.
    “In the presence of the king,” Charles said mildly, “it is customary that only one head in the room remained covered.” And with that, he promptly removed his hat.
    All of which proves one reason why Charles II kept his head, while his father lost his. 🙂
    Susan/Miranda, clearly deep in Restoration research

    Reply
  43. I have often felt that the reason for the high crime rate in the US is the pollution of the gene pool by all those wicked cousins that were exiled here in Regency novels, to spare the family the embarrassment of a trial.
    Looks like we’ve now found the reason why so many Canadians just don’t get it and have to keep saying “Eh?”

    Reply
  44. I have often felt that the reason for the high crime rate in the US is the pollution of the gene pool by all those wicked cousins that were exiled here in Regency novels, to spare the family the embarrassment of a trial.
    Looks like we’ve now found the reason why so many Canadians just don’t get it and have to keep saying “Eh?”

    Reply
  45. I have often felt that the reason for the high crime rate in the US is the pollution of the gene pool by all those wicked cousins that were exiled here in Regency novels, to spare the family the embarrassment of a trial.
    Looks like we’ve now found the reason why so many Canadians just don’t get it and have to keep saying “Eh?”

    Reply

Leave a Comment