Interesting colonial map - I never knew the extent of French territiory in North America (c. 1750)

[opinterph]

The convenient reference is the Wikipedia article...what specifically draws your attention?

The text in your post appears to be paraphrased – not quoted.

 

[Alnitak]

The final chapter in this family dispute was the intervention of France....however, you may characterize particular battles towards the end of the war.

I must eat my evening meal....thanks, for the exchanges.

I am happy you are still focusing on marriage rights for gays....

Indeed, good exchange.

You are a challenging debater.

 

[Benvolio]

Actually, not a single freedom found in the Magna Carta appears in the US Constitution as written in 1787, however due process does appear in the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta mostly dealt with limiting the powers of the crown and church, both of which are obviously absent from the US Constitution. Therefore, any connection is tenuous at best.

The US Constitution draws all of its inspiration from the European Enlightenment, which took place centuries after the reign of King John. The structure of our government isn't even English, rather it derives from the French philosopher Montesquieu and the Roman Constitution of balanced powers. In fact, as far as I know, the US is the first nation with our form of government.



Actually, the main idea in the Declaration of Independence that government should derive from the 'consent of the governed' was not in the Magna Carta either, but it was English.

By the time of the Revolution, all the colonies had written constitutions with appointed governors, an upper house, usually appointed,and an elected lower house. After July 4, 1776, the constitutions were amended to provide elected governors and upper houses. The Federal Constitution followed the pattern of the State constitutions, with the Senate appointed by State legislatures. The States, except Louisiana, enacted statutes adopting the Common Law of England as it existed on July 4, 1776 as the law of the state.

 

[Alnitak]

By the time of the Revolution, all the colonies had written constitutions with appointed governors, an upper house, usually appointed,and an elected lower house. After July 4, 1776, the constitutions were amended to provide elected governors and upper houses. The Federal Constitution followed the pattern of the State constitutions, with the Senate appointed by State legislatures. The States, except Louisiana, enacted statutes adopting the Common Law of England as it existed on July 4, 1776 as the law of the state.

See post 108, the very first sentence.

 

[palemale]

Well noted.....for along with English Common Law I'm surprised that Palemale has chosen to place so much emphasis on the Dutch influence in New York State, a small colony that survived some fifty years before the English assumed full control....while also noting that apart from African slaves, the majority of the white European population in New Netherland were English colonists making assimilation by the English crown that much easier.....

That later migration brought in Middle, and East Europeans, Italians, Irish etc. brings back happy memories of my visits to NYC where the melting pot is a joy to experience.

The Irish influence on the culture and politics of New York, and the United States, is enormous. Indeed, many of the New Deal reforms came out of New York and the Irish dominated Democratic Party. That doesn't negate the enormous impact of the Dutch in New York. Anywhere you look in America, the culture and politics of the original, European settlers tend to endure and influence in some fashion or another. It is not a phenomenon unique to the New York metropolitan area. The Puritan influence in New England is enormous, even though Catholics, the majority of Irish descent, far outnumber protestants of English descent. The French influence in New Orleans and Southern Louisiana is also undeniable. The influence of the Scotch-Irish (whom Benjamin Franklin called white savages) in the Appalachians and inland South is enormous.

New York's Dutch influence is probably most evident to people who relocate here from other areas of the country.

 

[Benvolio]

Journalist Colin Woodard wrote a recent article positing that the United States is actually made up of 11 different nations. The smallest nation on his map, geographically, is the New York City Metropolitan Area, which he calls New Netherland. Of course, the description about New York and what makes it distinct is all about our Dutch origins. It's an interesting article and worth a read.

http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

The true nature of the article is exposed by this partisan abomination, discussing the South:

"This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations." - See more at: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html#sthash.pk28JgEG.dpuf

It would difficult to devise a more blatant lie. It was "Classical Republicanism" which fought a civil war against the Democrats to end slavery, and it would be impossible to find a single Republican advocating "enslavement of the many". It was the Democrats who enslaved the slaves, fought to keep them enslaved and who even now work for an all-powerful government with ever expanding control of the economy and our lives.

 

[Kulindahr]

That the residents of New York city, and state speak a version of the English language, and the United States Constitution has as its inspiration The Magna Carta I suspect that apart from the Bronx family, waffles, and donuts the Dutch influence on New York might well be considered minimal compared with that of the British....apart from all the other ethnic groups settling in that city, and state who have also contributed significantly to the development of New York city, and state.

Really, the Bannockburn Declaration* is more inspiration for the Constitution than is the Great Charter: it rests sovereignty in the people and suggests a balance of powers within government.




*Declaration of Arbroath

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, not a single freedom found in the Magna Carta appears in the US Constitution as written in 1787, however due process does appear in the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta mostly dealt with limiting the powers of the crown and church, both of which are obviously absent from the US Constitution. Therefore, any connection is tenuous at best.

Well, they are, in that the Constitution limits both -- to zero.

The US Constitution draws all of its inspiration from the European Enlightenment, which took place centuries after the reign of King John. The structure of our government isn't even English, rather it derives from the French philosopher Montesquieu and the Roman Constitution of balanced powers. In fact, as far as I know, the US is the first nation with our form of government.

Not all -- some commentators of the period note that inspiration was drawn from the structure of the Iroquois confederation, which is a bit outside the Enlightenment.

Actually, the main idea in the Declaration of Independence that government should derive from the 'consent of the governed' was not in the Magna Carta either, but it was English.

More properly, it was Scottish -- they recognized that principle back before there even was an England.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was added in 1790 as an afterthought.

No, it wasn't "an afterthought" -- it was a promised addition without which the Constitution itself would not have been ratified.

 

[Kulindahr]

Because not only did we believe that the king should relinquish power, we eliminated the concept of a crown completely. Not even Mortimer or DeMontfort's parliament dreamed of such a thing. The English love and respect the crown, regardless of who wears it, still to this day as they did back then, quite unlike the American perspective.

Sometimes -- more often of late -- I've thought that we should have kept a monarch, but specifically a Queen, who would have the authority to spank the President, Vice President, and Speaker when they had been naughty.

 

[Kulindahr]

The process of democratisation begins somewhere, and for the English speaking peoples of this planet, The Magna Carta is the source of the democratic traditions that have evolved over the centuries.

No, it isn't -- for that, look to Bannockburn and the Scots.

 

[Kulindahr]

The true nature of the article is exposed by this partisan abomination, discussing the South:
"This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations." - See more at: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html#sthash.pk28JgEG.dpuf

It would difficult to devise a more blatant lie. It was "Classical Republicanism" which fought a civil war against the Democrats to end slavery, and it would be impossible to find a single Republican advocating "enslavement of the many".

From the context, "classical Republicanism" is meant to indicate that of both Rome and Athens.

And the modern Republican Party of the US does indeed advocate the enslavement of the many -- they've just changed the scenery, but the substance is the same. That's why I'm a Libertarian -- the GOP no longer believes in liberty (nor does the donkey).

 

[Benvolio]

From the context, "classical Republicanism" is meant to indicate that of both Rome and Athens.

And the modern Republican Party of the US does indeed advocate the enslavement of the many -- they've just changed the scenery, but the substance is the same. That's why I'm a Libertarian -- the GOP no longer believes in liberty (nor does the donkey).

Perhaps, but capitalizing Republicanism suggests that he intended a partisan slur as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps, but capitalizing Republicanism suggests that he intended a partisan slur as well.

Possibly so.

 

[Alnitak]

Sometimes -- more often of late -- I've thought that we should have kept a monarch, but specifically a Queen, who would have the authority to spank the President, Vice President, and Speaker when they had been naughty.

Yes, it would be useful to have a governor general who can dismiss Congress and order new elections, as happened in Australia in the 1970s. The precedent in recent history is that such powers have been used responsibly.

 

[Benvolio]

I think it is clear that we should move to the parliamentary system with the chief executive chosen by Congress as in most of the worlds successful democracies. We should not have a monarch-- unless, of course we get to be king. It is so hard to be elected President now that the qualities needed to be elected are not those to be a good President. Experience and a record are a negatives which makes election harder. Governors with no federal experience and compromises to live down have the best chance. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. Obama.
Be honest. Obama was elected on the basis of his ability to read very well from a TelePrompter, and little else.

 

[Alnitak]

Our Constitution is undeniably broken such that the federal government cannot tackle the nation's most pressing problems such as a crushing debt. We can keep our current government and reform it. Eliminate first past the post elections, corrupt primaries, and an additional executive with the power to dissolve Congress.

 

[Benvolio]

The direct election of the chief executive by the people necessarily results in the election on the basis of "movie star qualities" of looks, good reading ability and good script, and no experience to live down. I include the electoral college election as "direct " for this purpose.

 

[Kulindahr]

Our Constitution is undeniably broken such that the federal government cannot tackle the nation's most pressing problems such as a crushing debt. We can keep our current government and reform it. Eliminate first past the post elections, corrupt primaries, and an additional executive with the power to dissolve Congress.

Eliminating FPtP is a must -- to be elected, a candidate must have an actual majority, or it isn't actually democracy. But in addition, "None of the Above" needs to be on the ballot, so voters can say "enough of this shit -- give us real choices".

Along with that, election to the House must be proportionate within each state delegation.

For dissolving Congress, I'd go with a five-member panel elected by the state governors -- and three out of five would be enough to dissolve.

 

[Kulindahr]

The direct election of the chief executive by the people necessarily results in the election on the basis of "movie star qualities" of looks, good reading ability and good script, and no experience to live down. I include the electoral college election as "direct " for this purpose.

A better chief executive is obtained if selected from among those already known to have experience, by those who have served with them. The Electoral College served the purpose so long as there was no huge disparity in votes between the states, but now it is only a little better than direct election would be.