This quote is so strong and entirely highlights Allen's argument. The idea of fighting for independence on the backs of those who are still enslaved is entirely contradictory, but especially wrong when is comes to religion. Although, one this that has always confused me, even with a childhood spent going to Sunday school, is why slavery was justified in some parts of the Bible but not others. I'm curious if the white men back then were able to find a valid counter argument to having slaves, and if they actually believed it was their right to own another human being. This also reminds me of European men who came to foreign lands like in South East Asia and inflicted their religion as though they were saving the people there, but they were actually enslaving them - particularly in Indonesia. It's disturbing how often an ideally pure ideology becomes so contorted in order to benefit a small group of people.

Hamilton is advising against doing what England tells the colonies to do, and says they don't have the colonists's best interest in mind - only the interest of England. This, Hamilton's words here, actually reminds me of how extremist news will fabricate political news to create excitement and concern. We know standing on this side of history it's easy to see Hamilton as correct and heroic since this text led up to the war. But as the lecturer said, its important to look at things in that moment in history and not look forward or write it anticipating what will happen next. England seemed to be trying to work with the colonists, but people such as Hamilton were always looking to inflate and exaggerate the actions of Congress. It's also important to note that Hamilton was likely trying to instill fear in the colonists so that the masses of them would join and rally behind the war, which was arguably the elites' argument.

Again, we see Seabury unable to understand the idea of colonies being able to govern themselves. Seabury appears to be stuck with the idea that England is the only possible legislative power to exist over the colonies. It's clear that he stands on the conservative side of politics at this time, and is uncomfortable with the idea of major change to what we know. As Su mentions, there is a balance between liberty and stability, and Seabury is clearly only comfortable with full stability.

This reinstates the idea that the Loyalists (and the British) have a fundamental difference of understanding in the colonial situation. Seabury sees independence as a non-option, whereas the Massachusetts radicals see it as the only option. It's also interesting to see that Seabury explains why the colony must stay under british control: "the British colonies make a part of the British Empire... To talk of a colony independent of the mother-country, is no better sense than to talk of a limb independent of the body to which it belongs." Seabury is clearly saying that Britain is needed for the colony to function, and that the colony has no possibility to function independently. It simply isn't an option. The colony is only a limb to aid the mother-country. There is clearly a difference of ideology here, but also of where loyalty lies. It's surprising to have a character like Seabury, born in the colonies and understanding that his relatives moved their for religious freedom, but still not wanting to break that tie with England.

I believe the two in this conversation come to a stand still because the European claims that the idea of individual autonomy can be taken to extremes when citizens are able to claim that any law is against their natural rights. Instead of simply saying that he wants what Locke writes about, that "the supreme power cannot take from any man part of his property without his consent," -- I wish the American elaborated on the fact that this is exactly what the British had done through their acts and mandates. The two seem to come to a standstill (although I know this is just an excerpt) on the fact that they both agree with Locke, but the European's argument of the extremes of individual autonomy could have been dismissed through solid evidence of British acts, acts that impeded upon Locke's ideas. There's a reason that the American constitution was based so heavily on his writing.

This quote makes me wonder, what exactly was liberty in a colony controlled by another country? Liberty is an ingrained value in the American ideology, but when exactly did this start? How could he grow up loving liberty when he did not live in a free country? I see liberty as only possible through a country's sovereignty, but Dickinson did not see it the same way - what is the difference between the two concepts? Or perhaps, Dickinson only saw liberty as being infringed upon once mandates such as the Townshend Acts came about. This whole idea makes me curious as to what the status of liberty of the colonies was through the eyes of the colonists over the course of British rule.

If a ruler is misusing their power, then the laws requiring the obedience of the subjects no longer apply. This quote reminds me of MLK Jr's Letter From a Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws... A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law." Clearly, the basis of power which Mayhew speaks of is different than the democracy of the US, but both bring up the idea that not all laws should be followed if they are not just. This also makes me curious of how MLK would reason with a monarchy, which derives its power from "eternal" law.

I like that Hume begins with this idea because it's so ordinary yet so noteworthy. The fact that mass populations allow one leader to rule them all is very remarkable, but we often take it for granted as fact. Hume notes that the opinion of the masses gives the ruler legitimacy, and thus minimal force, if any at all, is required to keep the masses controlled. This idea seems as though it would only work with an unenlightened audience, unaware that their rights are being infringed upon. Is this really the natural way for a society to act? It's strange that this came first and then democracy followed. One would think that democracy would come to people's minds more strongly than a simple opinion to follow a singular ruler.

This objective and scientific idea is especially intriguing to apply to the distribution of power in the United States. Many people argued against the results of this past election, and of 2000, saying that the power of the people was not the deciding factor. Although it's far more complicated than that, this quote shows could be used as a frame to show how the electoral college takes the power away from the people. Furthermore, I'm curious to know what Montesquieu would've thought of the representative government of the US. It's vastly more democratic than the English monarchy, of course, but it's fascinating how ideas of democracy change over time. The idea of all races, sexes and classes being able to vote in the US would be insanely radical to Englishmen of this time-- but nowadays, this isn't enough for the common American who is against the electoral college.

This is especially interesting to read now knowing the context, and how it was the citizens of the UK protesting a monarchic government; it is clearly inspiration for the third amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It's easy to believe that the American founding fathers invented our preliminary governmental documents out of thin air, due to all the praise they get in history courses and such; knowing that it dates back to this time period, and a different continent, is pretty humbling. And not only does it go back to the authors, but they use inspiration from Cato, of Julius Caesar's time. It's fascinating that democratic ideals can date back thousands of years, and can be recycled over generations.

Starting out with a quote that practically defies the source from which the King claims power seems rather strong-- I wonder if it was considered harsh at the time, or if it was only one of many of its kind? I know from the video that the king's power was already a debate, but it seems like such a harsh statement to make. You would also think that, with such a bold statement about the king, he might be a target of the kingdom. It also makes me wonder at what point it was okay to question the validity of the king's power and not fear for your life.