I have always known about the Declaration of Independence, but through this class I have a new-found appreciation for it. One could easily look at this document and think of how important it was, but through this course I think I understand this document in a depth that most other people could not. I have studied how the Colonies began and how the Colonies and Great Britain began to gradually go apart. Nothing was sudden in this timeline. For the most part, everything slowly changed and all these changes finally lead to this Declaration. What better way to end this course than with the Declaration of Independence?

It seems to me that Inglis has forgotten that this conflict has two sides. The online lecture talked about how after the colonists sent the Olive Branch Petition, the last stand for reconciliation, to the King, he declared the colonies to be in rebellion. This then meant that American ships were no longer under British protection. Inglis, in this statement, declares that it would be much cheaper to just use the protection of the British navy rather than making America's own navy. Yet, America loses this protection even when it is trying to pursue reconciliation with the King. Again, I see that Inglis fails to see the state of the situation and does not understand what happened before the American Revolution began.

I think this quote is intriguing in the way that Inglis pushes forward the idea that there is a lot of similarities between the colonists and Britons. We have discussed in class, more than a month ago, about how the public good of the colonies diverged from the public good of Great Britain. Why then does Inglis make the argument that the interests of the colonies and Great Britain are inseparable? From my point of view, the time for friendship has long passed and true reconciliation is not possible at this point. Just as Burke predicted, I don't think that after conflict, reconciliation will ever be possible.

This quote is very similar to the famous statement in the Declaration of Independence, "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". I find it interesting that the Pennsylvania Constitution also includes property while the Declaration of Independence doesn't. In addition, the online lecture talked about how radical it was for the states to start drafting their own Constitutions at this time, even before declaring Independence. I wonder how the writers of some of the new state constitutions used the Declaration of Independence to help write their new state constitutions because this statement would suggest that the Declaration of Independence played a big role in it.

This quote reminds me of Thomas Paine's attack of the Constitution of England. The readings in the past from the colonists have talked about the Constitution of England in a positive light and didn't seem to critique it, just Parliament itself. I think the founding fathers understood this fault in England's government and were very intentional with making the Constitution clearly limit the power of the legislature. It is interesting to see how the founding fathers took their complaints of Great Britain and clearly avoided making the same mistakes that they thought existed in Parliament and the crown.

This Adams quote really stood out to me and made me think. When I first read this quote it sounded really nice and agreeable. Yet, when I began to think of this recommendation in practice, it didn't seem as nice and admirable. A government with this goal could just exist to serve the needs and wants of the majority and deny the rights of the minority group. The minority group would just be ignored because if you are giving the greatest amount of happiness to the largest group, the majority, you are completing the "best" goal of government. It shocks me Adam's said this even after discussing separation of powers in government as that is normally something that can protect the minority group and, in theory, not help achieve this goal.

From this point of view, Burke's plan, or any plan for that matter, would never be enough for Paine. He thinks that there is no advantage for America in being a colony of England. This again is something that we haven't come across in class yet. I like the metaphor that he gave when comparing the colonies to a baby and Great Britain as the mother and that although the baby at first needs the milk, that shouldn't be a precedent because the needs of the baby change. This keeps with the metaphor that we have been using in class. I also love how radical Paine was with his writings. From the online lecture, we saw how his radical viewpoints would cause spikes in readership for the newspaper that he worked for. Paine definitely knew what he was doing when he wrote this. Additionally, I wonder how people still loyal to the crown would respond to this statement?

This statement is so powerful. One of the reasons why I decided to write about Thomas Paine's Common Sense was because of how he writes. Paine was very deliberate in the way that he wrote Common Sense. He wanted to ensure that people all across the country could buy and understand his work. This is one of the reasons why his work was so successful, he made it accessible to people that weren't wealthy or highly education. Another part of this statement that stands out to me is how he ends the statement with common sense, the name of this work. While beginning to research this reading, one of the first things that I learned was Paine originally wanted to name this reading Plain Truth, yet I am glad that he decided upon Common Sense instead.

The way in which Paine just plainly disregards the constitution of England astonishes me. Almost every past reading has used the constitution of England to defend its argument. Yet, here Paine, at the beginning of this revolutionary text, just denies the power and authority of the constitution of England by calling on its weakness in trying to find its faults. He doesn't even try to justify his argument with the constitution of England. This statement is just the beginning of many more to come that stand in contrast with what we have seen in class so far.

Wilson thinks that the idea of the colonists wanting to become an independent state is absurd. All Wilson wants to pursue is the “ Re-establishment of the constitutional Rights of the Colonies”. Yet, as we know, the American Revolution occurs and the United States of America, an independent state, is born. What changes in the necessity of the Colonists after this writing that the absurd claim of wanting to dissolve the union between the Colonies and Britain becomes a reality?

Burke is one of the first writers that we have read that has directly acknowledged the views of the colonists. Most of what we have seen is just the colonists and supporters of Parliament talking above one another. If this had been the type of dialogue that occurred right after the Stamp Act, maybe the American Revolution wouldn’t have occurred when it did, or at all for that matter. It shocks me how straight forward Burke is to both the colonists and Parliament, yet he is in the minority, compared to the readings we have studied, for the view that he holds.

I find it intriguing that the King’s views haven’t been directly studied for the past couple weeks even though many past readings, specifically Jefferson in the Summary View of the Rights of British Americans, have shown the colonists plead with the King. Yet, it is clear in this passage that the King will not step in against Parliament on behalf of the colonists, even with their pleading. I wonder how this proclamation affected the colonists’ previously, for the most part, positive view of the King. Using the analogy from class, now the colonists have both their mom and dad mad at them.

I am curious to know the effect, if any, that this dialogue had on the Continental Congress. This is a powerful dialogue that condemns slavery for what it truly is, yet the Continental Congress did not act on its plead to emancipate all African slaves. How different would American history look if the Continental Congress heeded to the request of this dialogue?

I enjoy the way Hart uses Christianity throughout this passage to condemn slavery. Learning about slavery in high school, I was shocked to find out church-going people used the Bible to defend the act of slavery. This reminds me of one of my favorite Abraham Lincoln quotes of all time, "my concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be on God's side."I think this quote sums up the view of how, in reality, Christianity condemns slavery through its teachings of equality and justice.

The sheer honesty and matter of fact way in which Sharp writes this statement stood out to me. Firstly, as we discussed in class, England itself was far from giving all of its' inhabitants fair representation. Sharp, in response to this, clearly states that although England's representation is "far from equal" it still works against arbitrary power. I find it intriguing how even though he understands how unequal representation is, he still believes that the representation that is currently present is enough to check against arbitrary power.

I really like the way Hamilton writes this passage. In the eyes of Hamilton, Americans don't just like the idea of having freedom, but they are entitled to it. It's interesting to see this passage because freedom of speech, religion, etc. today is something that is vital to America's society. Hamilton then goes into how the Americans have never empowered the British Parliament to make laws for them and that because of this they have no just authority to do it. However, didn't the original British settlers in America agree to something that would empower the British Crown and Parliament to make laws for them? Does Parliament, in the eyes of Hamilton, need constant consent from the colonists to have just authority to make laws for them?

This quote stood out to me because of the way it plainly states why there was a change in the way the colonies had been governed. We discussed how in the earlier years of the colonies they had no problem with the type of authority Parliament had over them. However, with the passing of recent taxes, the colonists began to detest Parliament, as we have seen over the past couple weeks. These taxes lead some colonists to believe that Parliament had no authority over them and this change in ruling made them realize that. On the other hand, as Seabury clearly states, the recent changes in ruling weren't due to a fundamental shift in the authority of Parliament, but rather just an adjustment to how the colonies had grown. It is interesting to see the way each side views similar things in totally different lights.

I think this statement gives a very practical example to what the colonists are thinking. In this text, Jefferson starts by stating that the British Parliament has no right to exercise authority over the colonists. He then even goes so far to directly criticize the King. Yet, here he gives a simple and powerful example of saying how the King has no ministers for American affairs and that this is blatantly wrong. We have been discussing in class how there is constant miscommunication between the colonists and the British, but in this passage, in my opinion, Jefferson is clear and straight forward to the King on what he thinks should change.

I find it amusing that Wilson takes the idea of a mother country to a concrete example of how Great Britain should act towards the colonies. What better way to describe the relationship between Great Britain and the Colonies? I like how Wilson basically says if Great Britain will be good to us then we, the colonies, will be good to it, thus giving a mutually beneficial relationship between the two. However, this analogy, in my eyes, shows that many colonists still do think of themselves as children of Great Britain. Thus, showing the affections that some colonists still had for the mother country, even amidst the outcry against the Stamp Act.

This part of the passage reminds of Wolff's argument in "In Defense of Anarchism". The Englishman describes how if a person is able to decide what laws he will obey then it is contradictory to consider himself a subject of that government. He then goes even further to say that every act of government puts a person under some restraint which they have a natural right to be free from. This argument is very similar, if not identical, to the argument of Wolff. It seems to me that these two individuals are discussing the idea of individual autonomy and if that can exist with state authority. Wolff believes that the concepts of individual autonomy and state authority are mutually exclusive, but I find it interesting that in 1768 people are already having this argument.

What a profound statement to end this letter! This quote stands out to me because I believe it sums up the feelings of the colonists into one statement. Dickinson starts his letter by stating how he was taught since he was a kid to love liberty. This love was likely bred from being a part of the British Empire. This love for liberty is what makes Dickinson detest the Stamp Act as he states that this act represents that "parliament can legally take money out of our pockets". In the eyes of Dickinson, the act of parliament trying to tax the colonists consequently diminishes the liberty of the colonists. For the reasons stated above and many others, I believe calling the "liberty" of the colonists only a sound is a powerful way to give words to the situation and view point of the colonists.

This quote speaks to what we discussed last week to a greater depth, the separation of the public good of Britain with the public good of the colonies. Hopkins is basically describing the way in which the two public goods have drifted away, stating that most of the people in England have very little knowledge about the colonies. This quote shows the disconnect that begins to divide the colonists and Britain. As the online lecture stated, the colonists felt that Parliament did not understand their lives and therefore should not be able too govern them without any representation.

In this quote, Hopkins compares the provisions of the Stamp Act to being in slavery. This reasoning really stood out to me as it shows the sentiment of the colonists in regards to the Stamp Act. In the eyes of the colonists, because they did not consent to the Stamp Act, the Stamp Act represented the "slave-like" state that the colonists felt that they were in. This type of sentiment probably helped fuel the fire that lead to the colonist’s pushback against the Stamp Act and ultimately, the American Revolution It also seemed ironic that Hopkins calls slavery the "heaviest curse that human nature is capable of" as he had slaves. So even though it was the "heaviest curse"in Hopkin's mind, he still, hypocritically, had slaves.

It was interesting for me to see the rationale for why Parliament felt that it was necessary to pass the Stamp Act. The act would help defray the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies. Financially, this seems like a logical and fair act of government. I mean the money was, theoretically, going right back into the colonies, but I understand how some colonists felt threatened by the military presence of the British. However, the Stamp Act did not even fully fund the expenses of the standing army in the colonies. Yet, I still empathize with the grievances of the colonists in regards to the Stamp Act, but learning about the British rationale for this act of government opened my eyes to the other side of the story. It made the Stamp Act more than just a slap in the face to the colonists as, in my opinion, the British had just and fair motives, but they did not execute on those motives as well as they could have.

This whole essay was interesting to read. As a Christian, I would frequently hear verses like the one given at the beginning of the passage and, more commonly, 1 Peter 2: 13-14, "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right”. Both verses get across the idea that a Christian should submit to authority. Yet, in certain occasions in the bible, people do disobey authority and are rewarded from God for it. For example, Daniel's three friends, in the book of Daniel, refused to honor the idol erected by King Nebuchadnezzar and survived after being throw into a furnace because God protected them, thus God rewarded them for disobeying authority. So, to answer Mayhew's question of how far we are obliged to submit, I think the Bible is clear that one should submit until the person or people ruling go against God's will or ask you to do something against God's will. Yet, then the question turns into when is a ruler truly going against the will of God.

After listening to the lecture, this quote made me smile. One of the main aspects of the online lecture was the sort of inferiority complex colonists felt about living in the wilderness, far away from the civilization of England. People in Britain also increased this feeling of inferiority by the way they would write about colonists with disdain. The importance of status when comparing colonists and people from the mother land was something that I had never thought of before because when learning about the American Revolution, at least with my experience, one starts the story with people being dissatisfied with England, thus forgetting about the desire, seen in this quote, to be seen as equals to the people of England. Without knowing this background knowledge, I would have missed the importance of this statement for the colonists.

I find this quote quite intriguing because of the simplicity of it. Albeit, Otis probably made it simple on purpose, but it made me think. Otis thinks that any type of government is obliged by the same laws of nature and reason. Therefore, if an administration of any type of government deviates from truth, justice, and equity and goes towards tyranny, they are to be deposed. He then gives the example of disposing the administration of a simple democracy. What made this quote stand out to me was when I compared it to the political situation that we find ourselves in today. Does Otis not think that political parties will arise within a democracy? Thus, making his example much more complicated as tyranny to one party may mean justice to another. It seems to me that in a Democracy it can, sometimes, take a lot more than just a vote to depose its administration when thinking about political parties.

This quote stood out to me because of the readings we have read thus far, this is the first statement that explicitly discusses international relations. The Peace of Westphalia that was signed in 1648 was considered the start of the idea of sovereign states, but this statement takes the idea of sovereignty to a much more modern concept. Montesquieu doesn't just suggest that as sovereign states we should not try to meddle in the domestic disputes of other states, but also suggests that the international system should try and work to do all the good they can to other states. I believe ideas like this helped set the stage for the League of Nations.

I am intrigued by the way Montesquieu thinks that virtue is a vital part of a Democracy. This reminds me of Plato's Republic and the necessity of virtue in the Philosopher Kings. The way that Montesquieu also discusses different forms of government also reminded me of the Republic. Yet, beyond its similarities to a book written about 2000 years ago, this quote also made me think about America today. The current political apathy that is present all over the country could be the cause of, as Montesquieu said, a lack of virtue. Some of the other signs of a lack of virtue that Montesquieu gives are pretty similar to America today. It seems to me that Montesquieu is a timeless writer because one can find connections to the past and present with his writings.

Montesquieu never talks about a social contract, but I believe that the statement of "the conjunction of those wills" has a similar meaning to what a social contact is. This idea is similar to Locke and Hobbes as both exercised the idea of a social contract. They both defined the social contract as the time when people are not satisfied with the state of nature and come together and give up some of their rights to create a government. Maybe Montesquieu didn't want this to quote to be representative of a social contract and that is why he never directly talks about a social contract. I would be curious to know if Montesquieu believed in the idea of the social contract or if he believed more in a type of social contact that is constantly changing. I assume it would be the later because he talks about adapting to the climate of the public.

Locke, in a way, defends monarchy with the reasoning that at the beginning of a monarchy, they had consent of the people. However, what stood out to me in this passage is that Locke never gives an explicit definition or example of what continued consent to be governed is or looks like, beyond the option that a child is given. In England in the years before the English Civil War, who had the true consent of the people? Was it the King, Parliament, or both? How would Locke react to a divided country?

Did Locke believed that Charles I only called Parliament when it was for the good of the nation? It seemed from the online lectures that Charles I only called together a Parliament when he needed money or something of a selfish nature, not when it would be good for the nation. I would be curious to know what Locke thought about the English Civil War as he was still pretty young when it occurred. I wonder if the age of Locke and Hobbes when the war happened had a big effect on their political views because they had such contrasting views for living in a similar, give or take 40 years, time period.

Locke states, with reason being plain on his side, that men are naturally free. This saying really stood out to me because, as an American, you hear it all the time in the speeches of politicians, in American history books, and more. I had originally thought that the first time the phrase was ever used was by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, but Jefferson must have gotten the idea from Locke. It is interesting to see the impact that political theorists may have had on the theoretical justification of the American Revolution. Things like this make me think that the American Revolution was much more than just a war fought for the interests of the rich and powerful of that time.

I have studied Hobbes many times in a variety of classes, but I did not know very much about the actual time-period in which Hobbes lived and wrote the Leviathan. After listening to the online lecture, I realized that the English Civil War ended the same year, 1651, as Hobbes published the Leviathan. This means that Hobbes must have been writing the Leviathan during most of the English Civil War. I am curious to learn about how the English Civil War affected the views of Thomas Hobbes while writing the Leviathan. Is the civil war the reason Hobbes is so critical of our human nature? Did the outcome of the war reassure Hobbes's views? Did Hobbes believe in the sovereign power of Charles I?

This quote is interested to me because it compares the true cause and purpose of the monarchy to that of Parliament. In the beginning of the passage, Parker questions the King's origin of royalty and now, when comparing it to Parliament, dismisses the cause of the King in favor of Parliament. I think this passage was ahead of its time in the way that it delegitimized the King and gave legitimacy to Parliament.

This quote really stood out to me because in a way it represented the start of the English Civil War as it is when Charles I officially rejects the 19 Propositions sent by Parliament. The translation of what he says is, "we are unwilling to change the laws of England". I think that is a profound way to reject the 19 Propositions as it shows the, at the time, radical demands of the Parliament and Charles's unwillingness to change.