This quote really struck me as very interesting. The author essentially suggests -- or predicts -- that America and Great Britain will essentially be at peace and forgive each other down the road. Looking at the progression of American history until now, this was obviously the case -- to an extent, but what was Inglis suggesting here? Was he assuming America would run back to Britain crying to be under the kingdom's wing again? Or does he mean that Britain will realize it's mistakes and correct them in order to build the relationship with the new country? This quote indicates, nevertheless, that America is strong enough on its own at this time period, but may wish to build a better with GB in the future.

I think this is a really important quote because it highlights the possibility for using France to gain assistance, while acknowledging how it could be difficult to do so since the colonies were small in comparison to the bigger picture - which essentially was a healthier relationship with Great Britain.

After reading this quote, I find it interesting that Bentham is taking a more philosophical approach to reviewing the Declaration, as opposed to a more political science-oriented view based on the more theoretical framework of the document. With that being said, I find that Bentham doesn't really provide other ideas/ways in which the colonialists should have went about dealing with the British issues -- aside from the fact that he remarks, almost in a sense, that the American colonialists simply misunderstood the British to an extent. Throughout this review, and even in this short quote, I find the tone of Bentham's remarks simply overwhelmingly strict and tough as opposed to a more impartial view of the issues.

Who is encompassed within this statement as it applies to this particular time period? Were Africans Americans, slaves, Native Americans, women....included? Likely not -- so what are the implications of the more narrow audience of this document? Did it matter at this point in 1776? What were the reactions of different people?

I find this quote particularly interesting because it mentions Hobbes, which we previously talked about in another week. It's a hard-hitting quote, in essence, and it says a lot about Whig philosophy as opposed to other emerging beliefs and previously held political philosophy. This leads me to ask the question: Were there major flaws in the political ideology and how things played out?

I think this is a crucially important concept with respect to this time period. Here we see this source speaking of the importance of a jury -- and we can connect this concept with the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. And what does this author mean by "whether the fact be proved to be done is a crime or not, a man may hereafter be found guilty of going to church or a meeting?" What are the broader implications of this concept of a jury and how it was suppose to operate? Has it changed in today's era?

What is the impact of this statement -- particularly when it comes to speaking of public taxation? What were the long-term implications and how did people react to this promise of keeping out unnecessary taxes?

I want to highlight this particular aspect of the constitution, given what I previously have learned about the federal judicial system. In essence, I think it's incredible that the colonialists transformed this pillar of justice: The right to a jury is not seen in all countries, and certainly not most of them. What is this saying about American systems of justice? In essence, it's ensuring and embedding into a document a system in which the accused essentially have rights and protections. This, in my opinion knowing what I've learned before, is unheard of in Britain and other countries -- especially something as advanced as a system of jury.

This, essentially, is one of the most important and crucial aspects of the constitution, as the effects have evolved over time and been solidified.

This appears to be a sort of call-to-action to colonialists in America, demonstrating that freedom was just a step away from extinction -- in fact, it was already being taken away extensively. I would inquire as to the effect that this exact language had on people in America who read this piece? Did people partially shrug it off, take it seriously, or sort of view it as an exaggeration, believing this wasn't happening based off of their lingering loyalty to the crown, even if they were less supportive of Britain than before?

This is a very interesting quote. This, in essence, is everything American colonialists are embodying in their attempts to maximize liberty and limit the role of government over life. I would ask what the implications were (of this belief) on America longer-term after colonialists soon became founders of our nation and continued on with federalist and anti-federalists beliefs. How might those have shaped American life throughout the centuries? Has individual happiness been inhibited at any point following the immediate years after colonizing?

I find this quote particularly interesting; In essence, I take this as Paine almost admitting that the colonists don't know what they're doing -- to an extent, but more specifically they have a goal in mind but don't know how to reach the end result. When you're forming a revolution, it's important to have a plan and so it's important that Paine is presenting a case for revolution throughout this piece, but it's even more telling that he's noting that many don't know how to actually achieve the independence that they desire. Perhaps people were more concerned about the potential repercussions for rebelling? I also think that this is Paine saying he's unsure how people will break away from Britain because there are still many loyalists within the colony, which is an important component to examine when considering the nature of this radical shift.

What makes Paine concede Independence is the "ONLY bond that can tye and keep us together?" Are there not other solutions, compromises? Ways that American colonists can try to expand powers even under British rule while remaining subjects?

Wilson's argument here is very interesting because we see that colonialists sort of wanted to stick with Britain, but there's this piece of the puzzle that is compelling enough to serve as a standard by which America can be both connected as a colony and free. While the first wish of America being free is enough to indicate independence is desired, there is also the economic, social, and political aspects that are driving people like Wilson to recognize that the colonies must also be willing to continue working with Britain in some capacity regardless of what occurs throughout the establishment of rights and recognition of liberty. Regardless, Wilson essentially suggests that colonists must be willing to give up the power and benefits of Britain in order to live free, seeing as though colonists have not been properly brought into the equation when it comes to being represented by the British government in a capacity that grants them rights that they feel are necessary and mandatory from the perspective of the government.

I find this quote important and interesting because it's essentially giving insight into Burke's view that America's objectives are sort of well-aligned with those of England, not to mention the fact that he had instilled upon himself the values that were not being debated back and forth as the colony took steps to formalize a system of independence from Great Britain. Some things to think about here may be evaluating whether or not Burke was right about Americans having no interest contrary to the grandeur of England "when they are not oppressed by the weight of it?" Looking into this, it proves interesting to evaluate what could be done to alleviate that weight, while also determining whether or not the system of the legislature would keep the executive powers in-check.

I would inquire as to the broader implications of this argument that Burke establishes. How might this concept of "freedom" or lack thereof impact the ability for America to gain independence? Would it slow the progression down -- or change the tone of the movement?

This is certainly an interesting way to phrase a sentence in 1775...I would ask what the broader implications are of Hart's argument as opposed to Hopkin's remarks, as I find the two particularly intriguing yet for such distant and striking differences between them. I feel like Hart's argument is to essentially provide the rational basis or argument with respect to what would be the causes of the Civil War almost 100 years later in American history, long before it even happened. Throughout this particular piece (and I choose to comment up here because this particular quote strikes me) it's almost evident that there is already some sort of divide within the new country that is really taking shape; Overall, it's just an interesting piece because it tries to break down how one can define "liberty" amongst a group of people not necessarily "free."

I find this quote remarkable in the sense that it describes what a proper ruler looks like and what is expected of the people that grant them the rights of overseeing them. This is, essentially, about committing to an oath and serving the people -- which is what Congress and whatnot aspired to be in the future; and it also reflects back onto the English ways.

I find this quote very interesting because it's flat-out displaying the somewhat hypocritical and one-sided view of American Colonies with respect to their embrace of keeping already existing slaves, slaves. Essentially, this is saying: Either free them all or you're really no better than those who actually buy slaves from Africa. Given the fact that the year is 1776, I think it's interesting to see this perspective since we typically think of the Civil War as being the turning point in this type of ideology, but really it existed somewhat before. I would ask: What implications does this have on other folks as America is being formed into a country? What ultimately led to leaders sort of avoiding emancipating slaves at this given time?

I find this quote (and paragraph more generally) interesting. In essence, this is reaffirming that colonists living in America are still under British control -- and I also see this paragraph as a whole essentially remarking that taxation isn't all that bad because you are consenting to it. What this doesn't do is provide a dialogue or conversation, in essence, that sparks a debate with respect to taxation; At the present, there is no alternative judging by these remarks. What happens if the people in America don't want to follow the taxation/control coming from the British government? It's a little unclear here what the implications or consequences would be!

What are the implications of this belief, I would ask. How do they "hold" the crown -- what does this mean looking at the broader picture and building the context to understand the relationship between the crown and the colonies.

I think this quote is really remarkable, in essence, because it reaffirms the notion that the only way America and Great Britain can live in union is via loyalty to the King. Besides this, something that strikes me about this quote is the phrase, "...and their readiness to do everything to promote their welfare, that can be reasonably expected from them." I ask myself: What does "reasonably" mean in this context? While it may seem minimal, I think it is of significance to understand the expectations people had for America -- and recognize whether or not it would stop at taxation or go into different directions, as well.

What does this mean, looking at the broader implications of his argument in comparison with the pre-existing notion of taxation during this time period? What are the implications?

I find this really interesting because it sort of alludes to the possibility that people can do things in the kings name when really parliament and the government gave no authorization. If, by chance, a group within a colony decided to attack Indians, it could be seen as an enormous liability to the throne because really that "war" appears on the surface to be a war with the king -- and this would be the case no matter who the issues were between, which makes it concerning when people are reaping the benefits of a mother country but doing things contrary to what power they've had. How did this affect the image of the kingdom, would be a good question? How can the people use liberties to seek freedom and property, etc., when they do not have the authority to do so, nor do they have a government which has authorized them to make changes or expand their own sovereign country, even when it's still dependent on the kingdom?

Looking at this with an impartial view in this moment, I wonder: Is there significant merit to this argument? I recognize obedience, etc., is important -- but does this mean that every time people within a government seek to progress it should be tired to the argument that, 'we protect you, so your role in this government is rather limited,' if that makes any sense? What worth do advantages essentially have if they are not mixed with certain liberties and freedoms, I would ask and think about when reading this.

Connecting with what I wrote before, I think it's important to determine what the implications are of legal/policy changes during this time period with respect to the foreign countries under the crown. Though they were all essentially still connected, what did they lose over time? What did they gain from Britain? What did "allegiance" to the crown look like compared to people living nearest to the crown?

This is an immensely intriguing piece of historical perspective and analysis! Seeing the precedent set by Lord Chief Justice Holt gives us tremendous insight into how the laws of England began to be removed from colonies and places where Great Britain had over the world. Something I' wondering when I'm taking a look at this is: What were the thoughts of people as this was taking place in this moment in legal history? Did people see it as a massive overstep of authority or did they think it didn't go far enough? Was this judge essentially seen as responsible for "dismantling" English influence over time?

In advancing this argument, I'm wondering what the European is really saying about principles of freedom of speech, etc? (Those types of liberties) And if government is to be instituted for the sake of the people, doesn't then each individual have the right to decide whether or not acts are just or unjust? Even if you subject your power by being in a government, shouldn't some form of dissent be inevitable on some level -- and how could any good ideas/theories be advanced without much consideration?

I interpret this act to essentially be Great Britain stomping their foot down and saying: We will not put up with American colonies testing our authority and legal structure over them. This Act is important as colonists build their arguments against the British government, as both sides are testing each others authority and stretching tensions to the max, essentially. One question I might ask is: Did this Act have any impact to the colonists? (What I mean by this is, did they really take this seriously?) There are no real "punishments" within this act, as it is just stating that anything they do is simply null and void...Therefore, I think it's important to wonder whether or not this had a tremendous effect going forward.

I think this Act is very interesting because, for the first time, it's showing that the British government is beginning to back down on these efforts to tax the colonists, knowing that they could essentially potentially revolt or impose some sort of trade sanctions that would prove detrimental to the kingdom.

Sort of referencing my most previous comment as well, I think this is interesting because it reflects a deep sense of mistrust in the British government from being able to effectively and fairly oversee money collected by colonists, which demonstrates a deep sense of disappointment and eventual refusal to put up with the burdens of taxation without having a basis of representation in the larger view of the world.

I find this quote extremely intriguing because it offers insight into the thoughts behind taxation -- and I think it really is what sparks a counter-argument against it in the sense that people almost take it as a threat against their liberty when really the theory behind it was to potentially protect it in the first place. I think, in essence, people were concerned that Parliament would run wild with their money in conjunction with another executive-figure within the government.

I'm not sure what this paragraph is exactly trying to get at, but I do recognize that this is likely building the context to state that colonies are to be formed carefully with certain embedded rights and liberties in order to survive?

How do these rights/objectives translate into the upcoming American Revolution? This is a question that is merited in understanding how close the Magna Carta is to what would become our US constitution!

I find this quote intriguing because it represents sort of a renewed sense of checks-and-balances/separation of powers. In essence, I think this fits in pretty well with the objectives of moving past a monarch in favor of a government which requires one branch to compliment another branch within the system. But this isn't necessarily saying that there wouldn't be a way for an executive to still carry out their agenda; it's simply saying that in an effort to make government accountable, it's best to have a legislative and executive body that essentially works together. My question associated with this would be how the American Revolution would go about embodying this more-modern political thought?

I feel like this is an important quote because it connects well within one of our previous readings that tie themes of religion into obedience and natural laws. In essence, this sparks a conversation revolving around the American Revolution because this particular theory is defining the beginning of a new nation and the ending of another. What this shows here is that no monarchy is inherently granted the right to have their citizenry obey them, which is important to understanding the context of this relationship between the monarchy.

I think this is an interesting analysis because we often think, in modern day, that the less corrupt bodies of government must be within the legislative power since that branch is typically more representative of the people. However, here we see that the Legislative and Executive branches are being critiqued -- and I think it's very interesting to see how the executive unit of government may be less corrupt, given the history and context of which this piece was written. Montesquieu makes it clear he doesn't seek to attack -- or undervalue -- different governments, but he offers a critique that provides us key context into recognizing that many countries have to sacrifice their liberties in different ways.

Going back to my first annotation, I find that this quote is important because it demonstrates that religion had a ton of influence in various countries -- and where it didn't, in essence, people held customs high and respected them, while being much more hesitant or distrustful of more man-made laws. It's almost as if certain governments were seen as tyrannical depending on how much religious influence was found in their government, which I find fascinating as we continue to explore the theories surrounding what later became the American revolution, through the eyes of Montesquieu who has many different perspectives (and views of different governments) long before the actual American Revolution.

I find this quote very interesting because it expresses the manner in which the composition of the monarchy changed over time -- and how this affected the overall stature of the country.

When I've been reading about God establishing the basis of laws, essentially, I begin thinking a lot about what these connections may mean looking back at what we've already read by Locke -- and a few other authors -- and what it all might mean going forward in our next readings. In essence, I'm curious to see the impact that Montesquieu's reflections of the evolution of law have on the founding fathers as they progressed through the structuring of our American government. In a more modern sense, we hear a lot about the separation between church and state, etc. -- and I think quotes like this invite us to explore some of the impacts of God's law/religious law/natural law on the formation of what sparked the American revolution and how it was carried out.

I think this relates a little to my previous comments above because here the structure of the constitution is being analyzed a little bit. With that being said, I think this is showing some of the concerns surrounding how careful one must be when embodying free speech into policy, in essence. One question I can think of is: What would happen if the constitution is attacked and broken because it will not bend? What would that look like and what would the implications be for that body of people? Most importantly, I wonder what a "good constitution" would look like at this point because the manner in which freedom of speech -- or any liberties -- are embodied into that theory matter significantly in the ability for it to withstand attacks or significant changes on it.

When I read this quote, I thought a lot about Machiavelli's "The Prince." Though it was written one or two hundred years before this document, I believe, it is interesting to try and connect the two pieces here. For one, I think Machiavelli says that leaders ought to be careful about how they conduct their governments because the people will essentially search for the truth and create an uprising if/when necessary. Here, I sort of wonder whether or not the best princes have actually encouraged and promoted freedom of speech -- of if they just brought forth a perspective or "illusion" (for lack of a better term) to please the people. And it becomes difficult for public support to gather for political decisions because you will always likely have a group that won't go for it; So with that being said, I wonder how this author would have taken that into account a little more. Of course I'm not doubting that the authors tolerated the theory of public dissent, but I wonder to what lengths they believed something should go in order to protect liberties, yet ensure political stability. What would freedom of speech truly look like in this time-frame -- and how might the belief in freedom of speech change over time? Those are some things I would wonder after reading both this and Machiavelli. Must governments adapt policies to protect freedom of speech -- or do they just add it to a document and hope that it'll be interpreted any particular way?

I think this is particularly interesting because it's essentially defining what a citizen in a government is -- and what's expected from them. In essence, this is forming the structure that Locke feels contributes to a system of government in which individuals essentially consent to be subjects that obey laws while they also earn, to an extent, an ability to maintain a degree of liberty and freedom in society.

This is an extremely interesting quote, given the fact that these are real possibilities that occurred later in American history. (To the extent that you take out any monarch factor and replace it with the fact that we have a representative-based system of the legislature.) I think this speaks to the variety of different perspectives and divisiveness that can occur in this type of government, whereas a monarchy doesn't have these sort of issues.

What role did this theory -- or idea of government -- play in the formation of parliaments and governments? What are the benefits to this style of monarchy? I think this is a notable passage because it reflects the core objectives/power of the different components of a kingdom -- and how some of those components are ones which work concurrently with one another.

In this quote, it is evident that the benefits of certain governments are being reflected here. But the question that sort of remains is: Are these benefits something that intersect with each of these different forms of government? (Can benefits be mutually shared?) Additionally, as listed in the preceding sentence, are the negatives also something that are mutually shared among the forms of government? These are interesting things to consider, I feel.