This is very intriguing in how Inglis states this. I don't truly understand how the colonies were truly independent within this British Empire. There are many arguments that show the injustices that the colonies face that the British themselves don't face. If anyone knows or can assist me in truly understanding his thoughts about how they are independent within the British Empire that would be much appreciated.

This I find extremely interesting as it is in a sense very true. Jeremy Bentham is extremely critical of the reasoning behind the revolution and the declaration of independence. However, this portion is very reasonable in its approach. In a way this is where the colonists fail to defend their point. They consented to the oppression that they received. Even though there was public outcry against the oppression, they still would pay the taxes and would consent to what the English government was putting on them.

I think this categorizes and legitimizes the reasoning for many of the papers that we have read this semester. They were pleading with the English government, trying their best to stay together, ignored, and then trying again with pleading more and more with the Crown and parliament themselves. This is the most telling statement in the entire declaration. The fact that they know they pleaded and pleaded and now this is finally the answer.

This is the most important quotation of the week. If there is one thing that is the most important in sustaining a positive form of government it is the preserving of the constitution. This is the reason America succeeds, the document itself was preserved and built off of to the point that it was the best and most successful document and kept the government in place.

There are many positives to this document and many positives that carry over to the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, the 4-6th amendment rights that are included in sections IX/X highlighting a right to a speedy trial and then the right to avoid illegal search and seizure within the state. But with the many positives there are many portions that include to many rights for the people and completely delegitimizes the government. This is a good starting document, but definitely not the end.

I find this to be the most interesting statement that is posed here. I have to disagree, because I believe that America was founded off the fear that they would lose what they just fought for. They feared that either people would rise up and mob rule would become the way to rule, or that another king would rise and become the tyrant of the state. These are all fears that are posed in the federalist papers and through this the reasons the constitution was ratified.

His rhetoric is so interesting. The approach that he takes to getting his message across is intriguing in the way that it addresses a good thing that the colonies do followed by how Britain is holding the colonies back from truly accelerating in what they are doing well in. I find this approach to be much more believable and real as well.

I find this and the next few paragraphs very interesting in an appeal to the colonists. The people of the colonies intertwine their church and state, and have with Britain for their entire history. To go forward and then tell people that monarchy as a whole is a sin of the Jews, and a sin of religion is to basically call Monarchy the worst possible form of government that has ever existed. We have seen the anti-monarchy sentiments in previous readings, but it was nothing more than a classical liberalism argument and an appeal to human rights and individual autonomy. This on the other hand is an argument that completely disregards monarchy as a whole and calls it a terrible sin of man. Quite interesting rhetoric.

This is it. The forthcoming of the idea that force is maybe the only option in counteracting the oppression of the British government. It is the realization that maybe England feared that the colonies would rise up against the tyranny and they cut off the weapons and ammunition because of this fact itself. I believe this is the true turning point in American Independence and there is no going back after this.

I can't help but notice the contradiction in actions in comparison to the King George reading. Burke points out that the English crown and parliament have acted violently towards the colonies, and have acted in a way that would push anybody away. This is a direct contradiction to the love that King George highlights in his speech. Burke, unlike King George, is stating that the English parliament needs to stop what they're doing and look at the greater good for all the people of England including the colonies, and it is this statement that really highlights message of Burke's statement.

This is an extremely intriguing sentence. I love the rhetoric that the King is displaying here. Stating that he has been level headed through the process and then threatening the people that they will never be as free as when they were with England. This is after he calls them his loyal subjects and subordinates. It is very interesting to see how he does not understand or want to understand the colonists views and his solution is to use force.

I think Allen's piece is one of the better of this entire week. It divulges into a discussion of natural rights and the intersection of that with god. But the most intriguing portion of this piece is Allen's discussion on the hypocrisy of American's for fighting for liberty for themselves while neglecting the liberty of those that they enslave every day. I also question what the rationale was behind keeping slavery after fighting for their own individual autonomy.

I find it interesting that this is a piece that speaks about the injustice of slavery, but however the terminology of "creatures" is used in speaking about the slaves themselves. It makes me question whether or not these people actually care about the slaves themselves or they are just detesting it on the grounds that it is a natural rights violation.

Very intriguing how this hits all the major themes that we have been discussing when it comes to people in a true state of nature. I really like this argument as a frame for the argument about slavery and the questioning of slavery as a whole. Even though these words are professed about the state of nature, it is clear that this stage of society will never be achieved, and this is stated in the following paragraphs.

I find this portion of the piece to be quite interesting. I look at it as a political appeal, but a political appeal against tyranny. Hamilton knows that he and the rest of the people in New York need the assistance and support of the farmers, but this is directly speaking to them about their rights as individuals and speaking to them about the oppression that individuals are feeling. This piece is very influential in its ability to appeal to not only farmers, but to everyone. It may be directed at the farmers themselves, but it is definitely more general then the initial addressing of the issue.

I find this portion to be extremely telling. It is a great way to start off the piece in how critical it is of the crown and the king without actually saying the name of the king. This portion shows and exemplifies the distain that the colonists were experiencing as they were being mistreated. The feelings of the colonists are shown in this first paragraph and then extended throughout the entire piece.

I find Jefferson's rhetoric to be very interesting. He approaches the topic of tyranny in the manner that shows its has been long lasting rather than something that is just occurring. This works to delegitimize not only parliament, but the crown itself. This is more of a direct attack on the crown and the actions of the crown towards the people of the colonies. He shows the the king has had this control over the colonies for an extended period of time, and that these acts aren't something that is new, but rather acts that have consistently been passed down on the colonists since the founding of the colonies.

I find this portion to be very interesting. The reliance on natural law as a basis for all things is something that I believe is new and different. Law is being based off of libertarian ideals rather than civil guidance. This is definitely an interesting adjustment that has been made over the last few weeks of reading.

These letters really stick out to me as I look at how more and more people have gotten involved in the revolutionary process. Dickinson is an average colonist and accepting what his sovereign has put on him and his family, but the tyrannical acts that the crown has imposed on the colonists make him second guess the liberty that they actually receive. The part that sticks out to me the most is when he is speaking about how if the colonists are to resist the acts that are placed on them by the crown that they have the right to do so. But when stricter regulations are imposed after this occurs is when there is a violation on their liberty. And Dickinson's response to the stricter regulations is bringing a cause for people to resist the crown for their own sakes.

I find this extremely interesting as we read more and more enlightenment pieces. How there is a movement from a lack of liberty for the people to a point where liberty must be kept at all times. In my eyes this piece is a turning point for the Americans in showing how they should act autonomously from England and resist if their rights are not protected.

It is outstanding how detailed this act is. it is taking away all freedom to produce or write anything whatsoever. There is a tax on everyday living and if these taxes aren't followed there is a punishment of everything from a fine-death. The rationalization for this entire act is to help fund the protection and securing of all the British colonies. For the colonists, I can already understand why there was so much backlash, especially in relation to the readings of the past few weeks.

This portion highlights the colonists views when it comes to taxation. I could see how the interpretation of this portion of this text could lead to the rise of differing thoughts when it came to the revolution. I think the best portion of this text comes when it states that there is a necessity to fight against tyranny to keep the union together. It is stated that if unfair taxation is stated then people would become disenfranchised and ultimately want to fight against the tyranny that they feel.

I find this passage very interesting in its approach to the relation between the church and the state. The last few weeks we have read excerpts that indicate a society and its rulers moving away from a state that is intertwined with its faith. This one relates both back to the the faith. In one point it states "All civil rulers, as such, are the ordinance and ministers of God." This is a direct correlation between the power of the state and being a part of the faith.

I find this is resonate with the themes of our course. The American Revolution is based off of the resistance of the king himself. This passage directly states that if a king does not work to protect the people themselves then it is the duty of the people to resist and throw off their allegiance to him. I question to see if this passage is referenced later in the revolutionary era as a way to reason through the Revolution.

After re-reading this quotation, I find this as a significant response to Locke. This answers our discussions on the issue of property and power within society. Hume views this as a person's ability to absorb more and more authority and will ultimately lead to the demise of the government.

When Montesquieu is speaking about Despotic Government I can't help but think about the Federalist Papers and the sentiments that are being made. Montesquieu speaks about the issues of mob rule, and the rise of a demagogue, and this is exactly what is highlighted in the sentiments of the Federalist Papers. There is lots of crossover and the goals of finding a balance of power so that one party within government does not gain too much power.

This quotation relates directly back to our discussions the past two weeks on what is the proper way to govern the state and who should govern the state. Montesquieu acknowledges that man has tried to rule autonomously because it was natural (also recognized by Locke). He goes onto saying that although it is natural for a monarch to rule society, it is not the best way to rule it, there is a necessity of a "union of several families" which implies a larger rule by a group of people. With this in mind, he does not explicitly state that the people should rule society, in fact, I don't believe he would find this to be the proper way to rule society.

I think the approach to power is quite interesting. Very similar to Locke, the basis of power lies within the people and the people can use this to either benefit or it will destroy society. This is a very realistic approach to power, and there is a recognition and appreciation that allows people to have the power to control the state and that many others are not as lucky. This topic of discussion specifically shows the progressivism on the idea of power. Last week we read about how power should be kept within an individual, and this occurs not long after stating an appreciation for how power is held within the people and always should be held by the people.

I find this section very interesting in how Locke is explaining his sovereign. There is a vast difference between Hobbes' and Locke's sovereign. When it comes to Hobbes, the sovereign is one person that rules the state, an absolute monarch, but in Locke it is quite the contrary as the sovereign is in the state governing body instead. This is progressive thinking that shapes a rule by the people for the people rather than the ideas of the past where people must rely on one person to lead them.

I find the couple paragraphs leading into this one very interesting. Locke speaks about the state of nature and how people should ultimately live in the state of nature, but then they choose a monarchy as their way of government. This is not because it is the best, but it is because they don't know what else to choose. Even if a monarchy is not the best way to live, the people are accustomed to it, they have lived with it throughout their entire lives and they will choose it even it impedes on their ability to live within the state of nature.

I find this very interesting and it relates to both of the other pieces that we read this week. Each one acknowledges the importance of the people and they are all speaking to the masses. Even if they promote monarchies, there is an importance of pleasing the people otherwise the monarchy will not work and civil war will come about.

This piece is highlighting the ideal society. One where there is one ruler, a parliament, and the people all working in harmony, and none can work well without the approval of the other. However, it is when there is abuse of power by the king, or the lack of taking advice from the public that leads people to become angry with society. It can lead the king to lose his best subjects and ultimately cause uprise. This is exactly what happened in the time before the English Civil War. The balance of power was lost, and there was a ruler that ignored the will of the public.

This paragraph and the following really stand out to me within this piece. It stands out in stating these different forms of government and takes time to acknowledge that each have their positives and negatives within societies. Charles I then goes on to connecting it back to the English governmental system. It comes across in a different way than the rest of his response.