All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament the Massachusetts sic must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by Parliament. It is interesting to see where the main lines of disagreement lay between the colonists' delegation to London and the Crown in early which one would think would have been the last opportunity at some kind of reconciliation before independence was declared and war broke out.
No troops to enter and quarter in any colony, but with the consent of its legislature. The late Massachusetts and Quebec Acts to be repealed, and a free government granted to Canada. Sep 28, PM. Jack books view quotes. Sep 22, AM. Jamila books view quotes. Sep 11, PM. Fae 92 books view quotes. Sep 10, PM. Ryan 0 books view quotes. Sep 09, PM. Boba 0 books view quotes. Sep 08, PM. John books view quotes.
Sep 07, PM. Molly books view quotes. Aug 28, PM. Wendy 4, books view quotes. Aug 28, AM. James books view quotes. Aug 20, PM. Aditya 1, books view quotes. Aug 18, AM. Christian books view quotes. Aug 06, PM. Thu 82 books view quotes.
Jul 25, PM. Alienor 4, books view quotes. Jul 11, AM. Parmida books view quotes. Jul 03, AM. Amy books view quotes. Jun 26, PM. Paul Razvan books view quotes. Jun 19, AM. Redrighthand 2, books view quotes. May 19, AM. Apr 16, AM. Olivia 10 books view quotes.
Apr 14, PM. Reza books view quotes. Apr 10, PM. Thijs books view quotes. Apr 06, PM. Mathijs 94 books view quotes. Apr 02, AM. Cathie books view quotes. Apr 01, PM. Joshua 0 books view quotes. Mar 29, AM. Mar 28, PM. Todd 1, books view quotes. Mar 10, PM. Gail 61 books view quotes. Feb 16, AM. Not even a link to where I could find it elsewhere. Thankfully, after searching around a bit, I was able to find a digital version of it here.
And it turns out, the context is somewhat ambiguous. After spending most of the letter talking about the taxation, the war, the Penn family, etc, we get a slight shift in subject and encounter this in the start of a fresh paragraph:. He then moves on to talk about arming the settlers, and getting ammunition to those who need it. So this key quote is almost an aside.
But this particular section was NOT. However, I grant that there might be some room for confusion, because of the way the statement is just sort of thrown out there without a lot of explanation, in the middle of a letter that is mostly on a different subject.
How do we know exactly what Franklin meant? How do we know if we are really interpreting the quote the way he intended? It was not only future generations who found Franklin so wonderfully quotable. In fact, Franklin rather enjoyed quoting himself!
A quirk that was humorously mentioned in another one of my favorite movies, Anyway, as it turns out, the first person to recycle this famous statement about liberty and safety into a new context was…. He used a slightly altered version of this quote 20 years later in At that point, he was part of a delegation that was still trying to achieve a peaceful reconciliation with the British crown.
Seventeen points were brought forward for discussion, some of which were rejected by each side. In making a report on the situation, Franklin admitted that some of the issues might be compromised on. But on others, specifically the ones about Parliament meddling in the internal political affairs of the colonies, and troops being quartered in the colonies without the consent of the local legislature, he was quite firm.
The colonies could NOT compromise these without compromising their basic liberties. In other words, their laws and liberties were too precious to be infringed upon, even for the sake of safety. And it would be better for them to risk a lot of death and suffering than to allow those liberties and laws to be trampled on. Read the full context of his comments here. They might be very sincere. They might have the best of intentions.
I disagree with him on plenty of subjects myself. You can say he was a lunatic for all I care. I know some of you are probably wondering what in the world this post had to do with my writing or costume designing. But sometimes I just get really interested in a random subject and assume somebody else might be too. This movie, although great fun, does have a significant amount of language.
I recommend using filtering technology of some kind if this bothers you. Fair warning. What do YOU think? Do you think it still applies today? Also, does anybody else think Princess Bride is one of the most quotable movies ever? Let me know in the comments! I love this! I honestly had never thought about the context, but … it totally means exactly what I thought in context.
Personally I think that Franklin woke up one morning with something of the sort in his head, wrote it down, liked the way it rolled out of his pen, and began using it opportunistically. It is just dropped into the letter to the governor. Benjamin Witte can say that it means one thing because he sees an application of it.
Another reader can see another application involving the freemen of Pennsylvania unwilling to relinquish their self-determination for some overreaching act from the Assembly.
Another reader can see another application involving the liberty of self-governance of all the colonies.
Franklin may well have been carefully building a case for the American revolution. The logic of the relationship between essential liberty and security is the same. It is tautological. It is actually meaningless except as a reductio ad absurdum.
Only derivatively would there be concern for the civil liberties of individuals. The freemen of Pennsylvania are not free-standing. Their freedom derives from their body politic. The foundational belief was that a free people are self-governing. As a body they have jurisdiction over their internal affairs, which is to say that they have the power and the authority to direct their destiny. There is no suggestion that the individuals living within society are or should be self-governing, certainly not when it is taken to mean absence of internal constraint and disregard for the welfare of others.
Self-governance cannot relieve itself of governance. Nor is there any suggestion by Franklin that one body politic should have governance over the jurisdiction of another body politic. There are natural limits to the reach of jurisdiction. They apply equally to the peoples within a body politic — most visibly to the manifold oppressions at the root of our current social discord.
Full and efficacious representation within a framework of clearly circumscribed jurisdiction is the remedy. There is no overlord. It is in the operation of self-determination, realized within the jurisdiction of a body politic, to obtain safety through protection from outside powers and adventitious causes.
This involves no loss of liberty. It is indeed safety that conduces to liberty and the realization of the aspirations of a people. Intrinsic to self-determination is the power to chart and take the considered course, and implement whatever safety measures are needed to ensure the destination is reached.
On the other hand, safety obtained through the invitation of a power outside the jurisdiction of the body politic necessarily involves a loss of liberty. As long as there is Other in contradistinction to Self, self-determination is compromised. There are multiple cases in which this can occur. There is fear of the loss of liberty to an Other in consequence of merely the exercise of that liberty. This is a case in which liberty has already been lost.
It is lost the moment fear becomes the constraint on what is done. It is lost to nothing other than fear. In its place is the semblance of safety. Then there is the supplication for safety. The supplication is not a directive. The supplicant has no jurisdiction over the power providing the safety.
0コメント