The English Bill of Rights 1689
In order to understand the American Revolution, and the American Bill of Rights , it helps to know the Bill of Rights of 1689. The American colonists only wanted their rights as English subjects. Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, these were among the new guarantees:
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
* That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
* That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
* The Avalon Project of Yale Law school provides a rich treasury of original documents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/...
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
* That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
* That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
* The Avalon Project of Yale Law school provides a rich treasury of original documents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Allow me to make an observation, (try stopping me) when I post statements skeptical of anthropogenic global warming I get lots of points, but Ayn Rand died before AGW became a big deal (in fact, Ayn Rand would have died thinking Earth was cooling, which it was at that time), so what's the big deal about AGW with the Randians? Why do they approve so much of those statements but react with such hostility to my statements regarding power, force, and the use thereof? My statements regarding AGW are science-based, but the future isn't provable and I can't deny the chance that the AGW crowd might be on to something, while my statements regarding social power, force and the use of force have been proved by all of human history and are obvious to anyone willing to look.
You're safe to answer, because I think I've run out of readers.
If we type fast enough maybe we can get him to revert to childhood and stutter on the keyboardddddddd...
No. Jefferson's point was about rebellions within the United States, as he made clear in talking about the 13 colonies. If we were to expand and consider rebellions in other countries we'd have to start another website.
Beyond that, in 1836 people who resided in Texas were Mexican citizens, about half of whom were born Mexicans, the other half being immigrants about equally from the US and Europe, who took advantage of Mexico's land offer. The Alamo's defenders were a reflection of that population.
The Mexican rebellion started in 1835. (Texas was not the first or only Mexican province to rebel, just the only one that managed to free itself from Santa Anna, something I have trouble explaining to Europeans, who learned their US history from leftist profs, who told them the US "stole" Texas from Mexico.) The Texians won battles at Gonzales, Goliad, Lipantitlan, Conception, and Bexar, but lost at the Alamo, San Patricio, Aqua Dulce, Refugio and Coleto, after which Santa Anna executed 300 prisoners, as he had executed the survivors of the Alamo.
It was after these massacres that the Texians defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto. (Not as the movies show, in an old fashioned frontal assault at noon, but sneaking up on them in the morning and killing them before they could react. And it was after this that Sam Houston let the captured Santa Anna go, to return to Mexico and ruthlessly crush the rest of the rebellion. If there's anything Mexicans can justly hold against us, it's that act, allowing a dictator to resume his repressive reign over them.)
The victorious former Mexican citizens proudly formed the independent Republic of Texas, and remained their own country for 9 years, until they negotiated entry into the United States, on their terms, refusing to relinquish any land in Texas to the US Federal Government. Go Texas!
So, nope, the only rebellion that counts in Texas is the Civil War, although sooner or later, if we don't close the border, there's going to be another one.
The US has had less servitude than other nations, but it has still had it.
After living in NJ for 9 years as a teenager, now I talk more than I listen, speak quickly, and have turned that nasty personality disorder of talking too much into a fairly productive job as a professor.
Texas didn't negotiate the right to secede. Had it, in 1861 it would have reverted to being the Republic of Texas again, rather than remaining in the United States and fighting on the side of the Confederacy.
It negotiated the right to split into 5 smaller states with unspecified borders. I've talked with Texans about that option, will still obtains; 10 senators instead of 2, 32+ congressmen instead of 32, but the result might not go the way one thinks. South Texas is basically Mexico del Norte, Houston is basically a big New Orleans with more money and less music. You might end up with 6 conservative senators and 4 wildly liberal ones, with a similar result from the congressional division.
Texas is an interesting place. Spend time there and you understand George W. Bush's speech patterns and mannerisms aren't psychologically meaningful strutting or a sign of intellectual defect, they're culturally Texan. Texas has a proud history and Texans are proud of it. Texas has a strong economy and the people wear a can-do attitude, and Texans are good listeners, but don't talk much. It's not just the Bushes, it's the whole state. I like and respect them. You could do much worse than have a Texan in your trench.
If you mean what I might think you mean the NSA has probably just put another little black mark next to your name. If there's not a law against calling people tyrants yet, there will be and it'll be retroactive. I'll hold your coat when they put you up against the wall.
In the end, tyrants are pretty successful. They run most of the world.
True, Shay's, Whiskey, the Indian Wars only if you consider the Indians to have been citizens (I'll buy it, as a moral issue, but I'm not sure of their legal status at the time.). Texas was not part of the United States. It rebelled against Mexico, so that one doesn't count. Athens Tennessee should. I'd forgotten about it. Small but important. Still, far fewer than Jefferson seemed to think likely or necessary.
Load more comments...