Former names you use without meaning to

[roadman65]

if his name removed from places this needs to be considered that Lee was anti slavery.

Lee SAID that he was anti-slavery and maybe he did feel moral objections to it... but talk is cheap.  When it came down to it, he managed slaves on behalf of his wife who inherited them with the provision in the will that they be freed within five years.  Lee worked the slaves as hard as any other slaveowner, had them whipped like any other slaveowner, and did NOT free them within five years as the will provided.  He filed with the court to allow an extension, which the court denied.  He did free those slaves, but only after the court ruled against him.

I am only going by what I learned in Political Science at Valencia College in Central Florida. My proffesor taught the class Lee was anti slavery and that was in 1992-93.

He touched briefly discussing the Civil War which was not so much as ending slavery as preserving the Union.

So you're going to base all your knowledge on what you learned up until 1993?

That's not what I said.

I just responded to kkt that the college in the Orlando Area teachers taught me what he said was only  partially true.

No I don't think anybody stops learning except for a few stubborn folks I think many of us know in our personal lives and a former friend who dropped out of high school back in the day cause he didn't like to sit and listen to the teachers cause he knew everything including that seatbelts don't save lives.

[roadman65]

I just witnessed a post on FB showing a road bridge overpass in Scranton. Someone asked if it were the President Joe Biden Expressway and multiple responses said that it's The Central Scranton Expressway in many forms. One user said he wouldn't call it the  former president's name.

So that's one road that is not what the OP wants, but is at least calling a road by its original name.

[vdeane]

The colonies previously enjoyed the ideal situation: they governed themselves, annexed as much land in the west as they wanted, and then if they ran into trouble from another country or hostile Native Americans they called London and they sent and paid for the army for their defense.

And at this point I'm convinced that nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our mindset since then.

[Rothman]

if his name removed from places this needs to be considered that Lee was anti slavery.

Lee SAID that he was anti-slavery and maybe he did feel moral objections to it... but talk is cheap.  When it came down to it, he managed slaves on behalf of his wife who inherited them with the provision in the will that they be freed within five years.  Lee worked the slaves as hard as any other slaveowner, had them whipped like any other slaveowner, and did NOT free them within five years as the will provided.  He filed with the court to allow an extension, which the court denied.  He did free those slaves, but only after the court ruled against him.

I am only going by what I learned in Political Science at Valencia College in Central Florida. My proffesor taught the class Lee was anti slavery and that was in 1992-93.

He touched briefly discussing the Civil War which was not so much as ending slavery as preserving the Union.

Ah, the Lost Cause.  Belongs in the dustbin.

[english si]

One thing if congress changed it from civic pressure, but a president to use executive order privileges is likely  a monarchy m/o,. which is why we succeeded from England in 1776 in the first place to have freedom from dictators.

The US president was given more power and prerogative George III ever had.

The sudden change in ~1775 to rile against King George, rather than merely his ministers, is because the colonial protesters thought the king had a lot more power than he actually had and were annoyed with him not doing what they had repeatedly petitioned him to do (even though he was powerless to do so) in the decade before. In Britain, the colonial complainers were seen as Royalists because they were asking the king to behave like James II (if not the Tyrant Charles I) and he not only wouldn't, but couldn't, behave so.

The Westminster system divides ministerial power and monarchical authority: the king is powerless to do anything much, save what his ministers advise (though, in practice, the advisory role is the monarch's, not the minister's), and ministers don't have the authority to do anything save in the king's name.

The US separated powers, but reunited authority and power. The US president has authority to exercise absolutely within the constitutional powers he is given. The British monarch has absolute authority to exercise the power other people have.

So, sure, George III had full legislative authority, but he only really had the power of veto (and the US president has that). And George III had full judicial authority, but even his pardon power was much more constrained than the US president (it was mostly on advice of ministers, rather than carte blanche of POTUS). George III had full executive authority, but he only really had the power to give out a few medals that were the direct gift of the monarch.

[SEWIGuy]

George was also the "head of state," so he was a natural symbol of the revolution.

[GaryV]

The sudden change in ~1775 to rile against King George, rather than merely his ministers, is because the colonial protesters thought the king had a lot more power than he actually had and were annoyed with him not doing what they had repeatedly petitioned him to do (even though he was powerless to do so) in the decade before.

I doubt that those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were quite so naive as you make them to be. They were a pretty savvy bunch of people.

Part of the text: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Followed by a list of "He has ..." reasons for declaring independence. One of which, incidentally, was for dissolution of Parliament.

[Scott5114]

The sudden change in ~1775 to rile against King George, rather than merely his ministers, is because the colonial protesters thought the king had a lot more power than he actually had and were annoyed with him not doing what they had repeatedly petitioned him to do (even though he was powerless to do so) in the decade before.

Americans removing someone's authority over them for not doing anything about something that he had no ability to do anything about? Say it ain't so.

[freebrickproductions]

Also, IIRC, while a lot of the colonists' grievances were with the Parliament, there were apparently a few MPs at the time who were sympathetic to the colonists complaints, so the people who drafted the Declaration of Independence painted the devil horns on George to avoid potentially losing their allies in the Parliament, as I understand it.

[english si]

I doubt that those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were quite so naive as you make them to be. They were a pretty savvy bunch of people.

The entire build up could be described as both sides talking past each other because they just had a different understanding of the British Constitution (our one is a living document - and not all written down in one place either). Both sides were behaving reasonably and rationally, but in different frameworks of understanding.

Followed by a list of "He has ..." reasons for declaring independence. One of which, incidentally, was for dissolution of Parliament.

By calling George a Tyrant and citing a dissolution of Parliament as a complaint they were cos-playing as Roundheads (a connection of cause the founders pushed heavily). They were trying to invoke the 1629 dissolution by Charles I whereby there was a lengthy period without an elected Parliament and personal rule of the monarch (last done in 1653 by Cromwell).

However, George III and the British people would have seen not dissolving Parliament after a valid dissolution request as very Royalist and 'Divine Right' tyranny. This is another case where something would have been seen in London as the opposite to what it was seen as being in Philadelphia - different frameworks, cross-purposes. Divided by a common language.

George III dissolved the British Parliament in 1761, 1768, 1774, 1780, 1784, 1790 and 1796 (after that it's the UK Parliament, plus there's the regency issues in the latter years of his reign) - spot the pattern - roughly every 6-7 years.

George III's 1774 dissolution (the one the Founders are most likely to be moaning about as it was recent) was like the dissolution Charles III did in 2024: both were a few months earlier than planned, but both were pressed for by the PM of the day and granted by the king. Dissolution is the necessary requirement for an election to take place. The PM has the power to request a dissolution, but only the king has the authority to grant it.

Lord North's argument to have the election in 1774 instead of 1775 was that a new Parliament wouldn't be distracted by an upcoming election as they tried to navigate the escalating crisis in North America was a perfectly legitimate one that the King was powerless to deny. (North won in 1780 after it all went to pot, so this wasn't an attempt to squeak by while the tide was still good).

[Scott5114]

a different understanding of the British Constitution (our one is a living document - and not all written down in one place either).

If it's not all written down in one place, it's not a document...

I can't knock the British Constitution since it seems to somehow do an effective job, but I don't quite understand how it does so, given that every description I've seen of it seems very ad-hoc. Having things written down in a centralised document certainly helps when a layman needs to consult what the law says about fundamental rights and operations of government; if I want to see what the law says about, say, how long the President is allowed to hold office it is pretty straightforward to look up and I needn't do any research to even determine what law I should be looking at. (Indeed, the one time the police were in my house I was able to do a quick Google on the sly to find out what amendment I needed to quote to tell them to bugger off!)

The US Constitution was intended to be a living document too, it's just...not, because the framers badly misjudged how difficult it would be to get to the specified vote thresholds for amending the thing (with the difficulty rising as the country has become more polarised). We are probably in need of a half-dozen amendments at the moment to patch various issues discovered over the last decade or so, but the problem is that not everyone agrees what needs to be fixed exactly, or how, so there has been zero movement on any solution.

[oscar]

The US Constitution was intended to be a living document too, it's just...not, because the framers badly misjudged how difficult it would be to get to the specified vote thresholds for amending the thing (with the difficulty rising as the country has become more polarised). We are probably in need of a half-dozen amendments at the moment to patch various issues discovered over the last decade or so, but the problem is that not everyone agrees what needs to be fixed exactly, or how, so there has been zero movement on any solution.

The Prohibition amendments (the 18th was mostly repealed by the 21st fourteen years later) suggests to me that maybe controversial amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not difficult enough to pass. But then the 26th Amendment (voting rights extended to 18-year-olds) shows that uncontroversial amendments not only can easily pass, but set speed records.

[Scott5114]

I may be misinformed as to the history, but my understanding is that the 18th amendment was not so much controversial as it was an instance of "Welp, THAT didn't work".

I have to say that the Nevada constitution requiring two referendums, two years apart, for most amendments is an interesting mechanism that seem to blunt hasty issue-du-jour-type amendments.

[english si]

If it's not all written down in one place, it's not a document...

True. It also makes the colonial complainers misunderstanding of it somewhat reasonable as it is convention as well as law and it's mostly convention they didn't understand about the king's role (the convention of 'if Parliament feels you've overstepped the mark, you'll lose your crown').

[Rothman]

Sounds like the crux of the problem pre-Revolution was a lack of direct representation in London.  Imagine that.

"Taxation without representation," indeed.

[kphoger]

If it's not all written down in one place, it's not a document...

I can't knock the British Constitution since it seems to somehow do an effective job, but I don't quite understand how it does so, given that every description I've seen of it seems very ad-hoc. Having things written down in a centralised document certainly helps when a layman needs to consult what the law says about fundamental rights and operations of government; if I want to see what the law says about, say, how long the President is allowed to hold office it is pretty straightforward to look up and I needn't do any research to even determine what law I should be looking at.

Isn't that basically how case law works, though?  Go into a lawyer's office and there aren't three sets of big books.  The books are wall to wall, floor to ceiling.

As for a layman being able to quickly look something up in the Constitution, I'm torn.  On the one hand, the Constitution was written in plain everyday English so that laymen could understand it.  But on the other hand, matters of constitutionality since that time aren't decided by laymen anyway.

[Scott5114]

Isn't that basically how case law works, though?  Go into a lawyer's office and there aren't three sets of big books.  The books are wall to wall, floor to ceiling.

Only in common-law jurisdictions like the United States and the UK. I was surprised to recently learn (yes I'm slow) that isn't how it works in every country. As I understand it, in many countries the only thing binding is the law itself, and each case is determined with the law as written in one hand and the facts of the case in the other. Precedent and case law simply isn't taken into account.

[Max Rockatansky]

Kings Canyon Road west of Peach Avenue instead of Cesar Chavez Boulevard.  I suspect if will take quite some time for the new name to take for the majority of Fresno residents. 

[kkt]

Sounds like the crux of the problem pre-Revolution was a lack of direct representation in London.  Imagine that.

"Taxation without representation," indeed.

If that was the only problem, the British could have just granted members of Parliament to the colonies.  At that time, England was still far larger than the colonies, it would not have been that big an adjustment.  (India wasn't British yet.)  The reason they didn't was that there were many parts of Britain that did not have representation proportional to their population either.  The franchise was limited to property-owning males, and they did not have a census and redistrict every ten years, or at all.  Population shifts that came with industrialization made the industrial midlands much larger, but their representation in Parliament was still what it had when it was rural.  And there were other parliamentary constituencies that were very small, effectively controlled by a single family or even a single person.  If the British granted representation to the colonies, they could scarcely NOT give representation to all of Britain at the same time, and they were not ready for the loss of control that would bring.  They did eventually reform Britain's representation system and expand the franchise, in a series of reforms a little at a time over the course of the 1800s.  The colonies, even after America was gone, never got any representation.

(This explains why the decennial census and redistricting was so important it was written into the U.S. constitution.)

[mgk920]

How often is the Canadian House of Commons reapportioned?

Mike

[kkt]

How often is the Canadian House of Commons reapportioned?

Mike

Census every 10 years in the year ending with a 1, reapportionment following the census.  Same as the UK and other major commonwealth countries.

[Rothman]

Sounds like the crux of the problem pre-Revolution was a lack of direct representation in London.  Imagine that.

"Taxation without representation," indeed.

If that was the only problem, the British could have just granted members of Parliament to the colonies.  At that time, England was still far larger than the colonies, it would not have been that big an adjustment.  (India wasn't British yet.)  The reason they didn't was that there were many parts of Britain that did not have representation proportional to their population either.  The franchise was limited to property-owning males, and they did not have a census and redistrict every ten years, or at all.  Population shifts that came with industrialization made the industrial midlands much larger, but their representation in Parliament was still what it had when it was rural.  And there were other parliamentary constituencies that were very small, effectively controlled by a single family or even a single person.  If the British granted representation to the colonies, they could scarcely NOT give representation to all of Britain at the same time, and they were not ready for the loss of control that would bring.  They did eventually reform Britain's representation system and expand the franchise, in a series of reforms a little at a time over the course of the 1800s.  The colonies, even after America was gone, never got any representation.

(This explains why the decennial census and redistricting was so important it was written into the U.S. constitution.)

So...taxation without representation.

Founding Fathers were right that the system was broken.

[kkt]

Sounds like the crux of the problem pre-Revolution was a lack of direct representation in London.  Imagine that.

"Taxation without representation," indeed.

If that was the only problem, the British could have just granted members of Parliament to the colonies.  At that time, England was still far larger than the colonies, it would not have been that big an adjustment.  (India wasn't British yet.)  The reason they didn't was that there were many parts of Britain that did not have representation proportional to their population either.  The franchise was limited to property-owning males, and they did not have a census and redistrict every ten years, or at all.  Population shifts that came with industrialization made the industrial midlands much larger, but their representation in Parliament was still what it had when it was rural.  And there were other parliamentary constituencies that were very small, effectively controlled by a single family or even a single person.  If the British granted representation to the colonies, they could scarcely NOT give representation to all of Britain at the same time, and they were not ready for the loss of control that would bring.  They did eventually reform Britain's representation system and expand the franchise, in a series of reforms a little at a time over the course of the 1800s.  The colonies, even after America was gone, never got any representation.

(This explains why the decennial census and redistricting was so important it was written into the U.S. constitution.)

So...taxation without representation.

Founding Fathers were right that the system was broken.

Yep.  The colonies' lack of representation was a small part of a much larger problem, that was too big to fix all at once and had to be addressed gradually over a century.