Colonial Government

[Daniel David]

Jeff, I have an extra clue for you. Call me sometime, we can do lunch.

 

[Matt Black]

Jeff is correct in that the constitutional arrangements in the nascent US were no more democratic than in England. That was because, at that time in both countries, representation was linked to ownership of land. There was a sound historical reason in England for that - landowners were the only ones worth taxing and therefore the only ones worth granting representation to. That all changed in both countries in the 1830s as a response to the demands of the developing middle-classes, under the Whigs in Britain and the Jacksonian Democrats in the US, and also as a response to the growth of the same kinds of novel taxes that had sparked the American revolt - stamp duty, excise duties, and in the UK window tax and income tax. These affected far more than just the landowners, and the 'new taxees' began to demand a greater voice in the government.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[PastorGreg]

Curtis said, "The North wasn't telling the South what church to go to. We came from England to escape the state run church. I don't see how that compares with the civil war." (Sorry, I'm technoligically challenged and don't know how to do the quote thing)

Our War for Independence wasn't about England telling us what church to go to. Actually a small percentage of colonists came for religious freedom. The Pilgrims, in the Mayflower Compact, said that they came for three reasons: The glory of God, the advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of king and country. They were and considered themselves (for the next 150+ years) English citizens.

BTW, the Pilgrims, who in a sense came for religious freedom, never persecuted anyone. The Puritans who came later did, and in fact Mass. Bay Colony had some harsh words for Plimoth Colony because they allowed freedom for dissenters. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 11 of the 13 colonies had official state churches, the only exceptions being Rhode Island (Baptist) and Pennsylvania (Quaker). So freedom of religion really had nothing to do with our War for Independence.

An interesting note: In 1897 (10 years after the ratification of the Constitution, you know, 1st amendment and all of that) a Baptist deacon in Mass. had his crops confiscated because he had refused to pay the church tax to the state, which tax built buildings and paid the salaries of the ministers of the official state church (congregational). The first amendment was intended to apply only to the federal govt.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Q: Were the colonists in the Americas still subjects of Great Britain as their legal and legitimate government?

A: Of course they were. Anything about a magna carta or right of kings, etc, is a ludicrous smoke screen.

How much more discussion can there be?

 

[Daniel David]

Bob, why were they still subjects? They left that land for freedom in a new land.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

They left that land for freedom in a new land.

Actually the majority who came to these shores didn't leave England for freedom. The first came in search of gold. When they didn't find gold, they changed to tobacco, which became their gold. In the southern colonies tobacco became the currency. Ever hear of growing money on trees. In Virginia this was literally true (almost). In the first ship that landed at Jamestown in 1607, over half of the passengers were "Gentlemen" and a good portion of the others were servants to the first. Subsequent vessels brought a considerable number of "Gentlemen" as well. In England, the law of primogeniture (sic) required that all the land of the parents pass to the eldest son. There were considerable numbers of sons further down the line who ended up with nothing. The priesthood and the law, had been considered suitable occupations prior to the establishment of the Anglican church. But with the establishment of the CHurch of England, and the confiscation of the clerical estates, there just wasn't as much opportunity for priestly work as their had been previously. Many of the wealthy wanted to establish their junior sons with a landed estate, and the new world was a considerably cheaper place to do it than in England.

In Mass. the Puritans who came, as has been stated before, were only interested in freedom for themselves. They had no problem persecuting those with whom they disagreed.

Notions of freedom in 1620 are considerably different than they are in 2004.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Q: Were the colonists in the Americas still subjects of Great Britain as their legal and legitimate government?

A: Of course they were. Anything about a magna carta or right of kings, etc, is a ludicrous smoke screen.

How much more discussion can there be?

Bro Bob,
You'd make a good "Rex Lex" King. They all said the same thing.

Thanks ------Bart