I thought this was an interesting example of how the American colonies and the British Empire had serious communication problems. While I do not necessarily think Bentham is correct in his assessment of this situation, it is evident by this example how an action by one party could be seen as having a completely different intent by the other. According to Bentham, these actions by Parliament were meant to help the American colonists. However, the colonists felt this was an abuse of power. The British Empire and the American colonists had built up so much animosity between each other that I'm not sure anything would have led to reconciliation, but perhaps better communication between the two parties would have at least served to create a better understanding of the issues involved.

This paragraph was interesting. Inglis describes some of the stress and pressure someone in the colonies who wanted to stay connected to the British Empire may feel if the American colonies issued a Declaration of Independence. This made me think about what the loyalists did when the Declaration of Independence was signed. It is evident that not every colonist was 100% on board with the idea of being independent from Britain. So, when the American colonies did declare independence on July 4, 1776, how did the loyalists react? Did they stand with Britain? Did they decide to support the colonists in the American Revolution? Did they go back to Britain?

After reading all of the assigned writings throughout this semester and interpreting the different arguments and grievances presented by the authors, I am amazed at how well this document incorporates all of the different concerns, issues, and demands we have read and discussed in class. This remarkable document discusses representation in parliament, self-government, taxes, trial by jury, and so much more. Thomas Jefferson is a very talented writer, and this document is evidence of that skill. He was able to effectively and eloquently summarize why the colonists were declaring independence from the British Empire.

I thought this was an interesting distinction. It seems as though Rush is saying that while power comes from the people, people do not retain the power. Delegation of power is key for a government to be successful. However, if we completely give up all of our power to government, how do we leave and fight against oppressive governments? I understand that we need to obey the laws and rules of government in order to have a functioning society, but I think there is a balance between how much power a citizen gives to its government and how much power they retain.

These sentences were mentioned in this week's history lecture, and I thought they were really interesting. People during this time period were in a very unique position to have a significant influence on the formation and success of a new nation. The decisions they made would have a lasting impact on not only the government of the colonies but the millions of people who lived throughout the United States. I can only imagine what it felt like to be in this situation. The Founding Fathers had a lot of responsibility, but I think it was probably a remarkable experience as well.

I thought this was a very interesting paragraph. Paine observes that there are four types of men who support the idea of reconciliation with the British Empire: interested men, weak men, prejudiced men, and moderate men. What I found particularly interesting was that he reasons that moderate men will cause the most problems to the American colonies. When I first read this, I didn't understand his argument. After further reading, I think I have a better grasp on what he is trying to say, but please correct me if I am wrong. He is arguing that members of the colonies that hold moderate support for reconciliation will cause more injury to the colonies because they choose to hold a higher opinion of Europe. Moderate men who support reconciliation see and understand the injustices that the British Empire has placed on the American colonies, yet they still want to remain connected with this government. These individuals will likely not be able to be the loving and faithful servants they once were to the British Empire, so it only delays the inevitable separation. And if these moderate colonists are able to be loving and faithful servants, then as Paine writes, they are "unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be [their] rank or title in life, [they] have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant."

This paragraph was very interesting to me. Thomas Paine is basically saying the British Empire doesn't care about the personal connection it has with the American colonies; the "parent country" only cares about "trade and dominion." It may have provided some protection to the colonies, but it would have done the same for another state, like Turkey. In my opinion, this is a very compelling argument. Many citizens of the American colonies were wary of rebelling because of the loyalty they felt to the British Empire. However, this argument states that the Empire does not care for the colonists in the same way; the British Empire is merely self-interested and using the colonies to advance their own goals and ambitions. If I were a colonist who still felt a connection to the British Empire, this would definitely make me question why I cared so much about the British Empire when they cared so little for me.

As was mentioned in this week's lecture video, Thomas Paine presents a new perspective on the argument for separation between the American colonies and Great Britain. He looks at this conflict from the perspective of the structure of government. His overall argument is that monarchies are not "good" governments (for many different reasons); therefore, the American colonies should leave the British Empire on this fact alone. While this paragraph is just a small piece of evidence that Paine presents on his distaste with monarchy, it provides a good summary of Paine's overall opinion on the issue.

I found this objection to using force against the colonies to be very insightful. This objection is basically stating that by starting a forceful conflict or war with the American colonies, the American colonies will no longer be what the British Empire wanted to begin with. If the British Empire were to win, the land and the people would not be the same; they would be "depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest." My favorite line in this paragraph was, "I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit; because it is the spirit that has made the country." This demonstrates Burke's respect for the American colonists way of life and love of liberty. He sees the influence that their principles and values have had on the success of the colonies, and he believes that if that spirit were to leave, the colonies would not be the same.

This directly addresses what King George III said he wanted done in the previous reading. King George III wanted to increase the number of troops in the American colonies to force them to abide by the decisions of the British empire. I think Edward Burke makes a compelling argument here to counter this decision by the King. Using force to get the American colonists to comply with the British Empire will only work for a short period of time, and the colonies will never truly be a part of the Empire if they always need to be conquered. I think this is a convincing argument because it shows that though the actions the King desires may work in the short-term (if at all), it will not lead to long-term stability and a good relationship between the British Empire and the colonies.

When I read this sentence, I immediately thought of the American civil war. The issue of slavery was one of the causes of the American civil war, and there was a division between the North and the South on whether or not slavery should be permitted. Even at this point in time, there was a distinction between how the North and the South viewed slavery and treated the slaves.

I had never heard this argument in favor of the slave-trade before. This argument implies that the slave-trade is good because it brings Africans to "places of gospel light" and shows them Christianity. Obviously, this is not a very sound argument, as Hopkins points out. Hopkins discusses how this is not a good argument because the places the slaves were brought, such as the West Indies, were not really "places of gospel light." He also points out that the African slaves were not given any opportunities to learn about the gospel and would put themselves in a dangerous situation if they tried to learn. Hopkins also mentions how the slave-trade actually spurs prejudice and contempt for Christianity among the slaves; many people who called themselves Christians were the ones being cruel to the African slaves, so that experience with Christianity "only serves to prejudice them [slaves] in the highest degree against the Christian religion." Finally, Hopkins describes how even if this were true, it does not justify slavery.

Here we see another example of "No taxation without representation." Sharp believes that in order for a law to binding on its citizens they must have consented to that law. However, Sharp also seems to agree with some form of virtual representation like we discussed in previous readings. He acknowledges that not everybody is equitably represented; however, he says that the whole country is represented by the people who can vote. Taking this argument a step further, the people who can vote pick people to represent the country. Therefore, under virtual representation, all citizens are represented by the representatives.

I thought this paragraph was very interesting. Alexander Hamilton is saying that because citizens of Great Britain, Ireland, the West Indies, and the American colonies are all connected and part of a community, they have a duty to each other. This duty entails protecting each other from injury. As Hamilton writes, "If one part endeavours to violate the rights of another, the rest ought to assist in preventing the injury." Hamilton believes that other parts of the community should not be bystanders. They should take action against the part of the community hurting the other part of the community. In this case, Hamilton likely views the Parliament of Great Britain as the branch of the community that is "endavour[ing] to violate the rights of [the American colonists]." Therefore, he believes Ireland, the West Indies, and citizens of all other parts of the empire should assist the American colonies in "preventing the injury." Hamilton adds that if they do not assist, they are accomplices to such actions against the American colonies.

Several of the writers we have read recently have discussed how the King has authority over the American colonists (and loyalty from the colonists), but Parliament does not. Seabury can not fathom how Americans can be under the authority of only the King and not Parliament. He sees no distinction between the two. In his opinion, if you are obedient to one branch of government, you are obedient to the other.

I thought this was a very bold statement. Many of the readers we have talked about thus far have remarked that while the acts were unfair to the colonists, Parliament clearly had the authority to pass the unpopular acts (such as the Stamp Act). Thomas Jefferson takes a completely different perspective on this issue with this statement. He believes that Parliament does not have any authority over the colonies.

I found this argument/example to be very compelling. In the highlighted and following paragraphs, Wilson provides an analysis comparing the American colonies to Ireland. He presents legal evidence of a ruling by the judges of England then analyzes the facts of the ruling. One of the reasons I found this to be such an interesting point was because of the ruling the judges made. The judges ruled that because Ireland did not “send knights to parliament” (i.e. they did not have representation in parliament), Ireland was not bound by the statutes of England, even though they were subjects of England. I think it is reasonable for a colonist to wonder why this reasoning had not been applied to the American colonies as well. An individual seeking to oppose such an argument would point out the differences between Ireland and the American colonies; however, I still find this ruling to be very supportive of the colonists arguments for representation and liberty because it shows, as Wilson writes, that “it is by no means a rule, that the authority of parliament extends to all the subjects of the crown.”

I thought these sentences were very interesting. I compared this to Otis’ view of Parliament. Otis believes that when Parliament makes a mistake, they will realize their mistake and fix it themselves; Parliament is self-correcting from Otis’ perspective. Wilson reasons that because Parliament is composed of humans, they will “deviate from their duty” and make mistakes. However, Wilson mentions nothing about Parliament realizing their mistakes and fixing them. Wilson places much less trust in Parliament than Otis. This is likely because Otis wrote before the Stamp Act; Wilson is writing after the Stamp Act has been passed, and as we know, there were many colonists very upset with Parliament over this legislation.

I think Dickinson exemplifies what many colonists felt during this time period. Many of the colonists felt strongly about their ties to Great Britain. In this letter, Dickinson does not try to say that Parliament does not have authority over the colonies. The sentence that particularly stood out to me in the paragraph was, “He who considers these provinces as states distinct from the British Empire, has very slender notions of justice, or of their interests.” Dickinson, along with many other colonists, thought it was still in the best interest of the colonies to be a part of Great Britain. However, he felt that recent law passed under the Stamp Act administration did not “preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire” and took away liberty from the colonists. He did not think previous Parliaments had took such actions against the colonies. Therefore, had Parliament not overstepped its bounds by passing the Stamp Act, I don’t think Dickinson would have had a problem with Parliament; I also don’t believe he would have written these letters.

Both Thomas Whately and Martin Howard, Jr. make this argument. They address the colonists' issue of "No Taxation without Representation" by saying that the colonists are represented in Parliament. Parliament is a collective body that looks out for the general public welfare, not the interests of their individual constituents. I think this argument is wishful thinking. While it would be great if that were true, members of Parliament are going to want to remain in Parliament, so they will want to please their constituents. Furthermore, how can members of Parliament truly represent the interests of the colonists if they have never been to America and understand how their society operates? They will not know what is truly needed to improve the public welfare in the colonies unless they have lived there and understand the communities.

This paragraph was interesting. He seems to think that the colonists shouldn't have representation in Parliament because even if they had it, it wouldn't make a difference; representatives of the American colonists would not be able to influence the rest of the British legislature. While there may be some truth to such a statement, I reason that at least the colonists concerns would be heard even if they do not get their desired outcome. I also think there would be certain issues where other representatives in Parliament would potentially side with the colonists. I think it is short-sighted to argue that the colonists should not have representation because it will do them no good.

I found this argument to be interesting. I had never thought about the taxation of the American colonists from this perspective. If Parliament increases taxes on the American colonists, fewer taxes would be needed from the British subjects in the mother country. The subjects in the mother country would love this policy, so members of Parliament would seek to continue such policies to win the votes of its subjects in the mother country. Since colonists have no representation in Parliament, there would be no easy way for the colonists to counteract the popularity of such policy. This would create a never ending spiral that would continually hurt the American colonists.

I thought this argument was really interesting. Otis reasons that the colonists should have their own legislature. This legislature is not created to override or compete with England's government; likely, this action would be made to allow the colonists to have greater involvement and have the decision making of the colonies to be closer to home (where they know more about the needs of the area). The legislature of England would still be superior.

Otis views Parliament as self-correcting. He reasons that when Parliament makes a mistake (e.g. creating a law against God's will), they will realize their mistake and fix it themselves. I think Otis places a lot of trust in Parliament. Perhaps Parliament will think that something against God's will is good for society, and they will have no intention of changing that law for that reason; they may feel that their law is superior to God's will. In this case, Parliament would not correct its mistake, even though it would be against the foundation of government.

Though Jonathan Mayhew may have been the individual who coined the phrase, “No taxation without representation,” that is exactly what Otis is saying in this sentence. The colonists should be able to keep their property, such as their income, unless they have consented to have that right taken away. In order for the government to have the authority to take away property from its citizens, the citizens should have proper representation in government to make sure their opinion is heard.

This relates to our discussion in class last week about the balance of authority and liberty. When people consent to give up some of their liberty (e.g. agree to pay taxes), the government gains authority. If the government seizes control and taxes its citizens, the government is demonstrating extreme authority and giving no liberty to its citizens.

I understand that Montesquieu is arguing here that the legislative body should not always be assembled, but I reason that this argument could also be used to support term limits or shorter terms for representatives in the legislature. In this paragraph, Montesquieu is arguing that when people see a corrupt legislature, without knowing that a new legislature may be able to come in the future, they become hopeless. Therefore, Montesquieu could also argue that instilling term limits and/or shorter terms would make it easier to get new representatives and new opinions in the legislature, removing corruption more easily and frequently.

I though this part was particularly intriguing. As Su_chatt also mentions above, this chapter is clearly about Montesquieu's opinion and support for the separation of powers. In this particular paragraph, he discusses how "there would be an end of every thing" if we did not have a separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial areas of government. Before and after this paragraph, he gives examples of negative things that could occur without separation of powers, such as arbitrary control and oppression. I reason the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by this notion as the separation of powers was one of the most important structural decisions they made when establishing the United States of America.

I thought this sentence was very interesting. In order to form a government, an individual gives up some liberty, and the government gains authority (regardless of the form of government). Or, government gives up some authority, and it's citizens will have more liberty. There's a clear trade-off between the two. I found it intriguing how Hume mentions that neither of them "can ever absolutely prevail in the contest." He argues that we cannot (and should not) have a dictatorship (absolute authority). In addition, absolute liberty (anarchy) is not acceptable because you would not be able to have a government.

I found it interesting that Locke emphasizes that people voluntarily choose to live under a monarchy, compared to some other people who believe monarchies are formed because people believe those in the monarchy are given power from God. Locke reasons that people established this form of government because they thought it was best fit to protect them and their property. As he writes later, people chose this form of government to help them defend against foreign invasions.

I thought this analogy was very interesting. Locke addresses those who think that because there is no documentation of people coming together to form government, it may not have happened that way. His response is an argument from analogy. Even if we have never heard of a soldier's childhood, it doesn't mean they didn't have one (they obviously did). To the same extent, even if we have never heard of people coming together in the state of nature to form a government, it doesn't mean that it didn't occur that way.

I thought this line was particularly intriguing, particularly how it is connected to John Locke's idea. Locke believed that people form governments in order to secure their property. So, this sentence is essentially saying that freedom of speech is also a necessary component to creating a successful government. In addition, I think that Americans potentially took this into account when writing the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

I thought it was interesting that King Charles I was sort of negotiating with Parliament in this part of his answer. He was willing to make a small concession. Perhaps he did this to show that he was willing to work with Parliament a little bit. Though he would not give in to all of Parliament’s demands because as he later writes, that would be a complete violation of the laws of the kingdom, he may have added this to try to convince Parliament that he was willing to make a few changes. Or, maybe this was not a negotiation; rather, it was evidence that the monarchy is able to make necessary changes on their own without influence from Parliament.

I found it intriguing that Parliament included a proposition that they needed to consent to those who become major officers and counselors; this proposition decreases the power of the King. This reminds me of how the Senate is needed to confirm nominations to the Cabinet and Supreme Court, decreasing the power of the President.

I found this part of the paragraph to be of particular interest. King Charles I lists some of what he views as undesirable consequences of parliament’s 19 propositions. However, much of what parliament was doing with these propositions was lessening the King’s power. For example, all major officers and counselors would have to be approved by parliament. King Charles I tries to make it appear as though he is primarily motivated by protecting the people and their interests. However, I would say he was likely strongly motivated by his own desire for power as well.