True, Joseph, and thanks for bringing an even broader perspective.

Many here will also have heard that there is discussion in the UK of repealing the ban on Catholics succeeding to the throne, and at the same time ending the practice of male-preference in determining the line of succession.

George Lucki;79854 wrote:

But it was - liberty, even the liberty to dissent and if needed to do so by force of arms was apparently an American ideal that was to have differentiated them from the British. Instead we have the same approach.

It would have been asking a lot of any government in the late 18th century to accord full rights to someone who rejected allegiance to the state in which he lived in favor of allegiance to a foreign potentate.  I suspect most statesmen and jurists in any country of the time would have said that any state which couldn’t demand exclusive allegiance from those who lived under its protection wasn’t really a state.

Quote:

Good point. Except that those who persisted were simply loyal to the oaths they had sworn. Their crime was in keeping their promises.

Most of the loyalists would never have sworn any oath at all, unless they held some sort of office.  They had passively become subjects of the King (by having been born within his allegiance), and on July 4, 1776, they passively became citizens of the States in which they resided.  As citizens they owed the same loyalty to the State that they had previously owed to the King as subjects.  From the American point of view, their crime was in betraying their natural allegiance to the State of which they were citizens.

Joseph McMillan;79871 wrote:

It would have been asking a lot of any government in the late 18th century to accord full rights to someone who rejected allegiance to the state in which he lived in favor of allegiance to a foreign potentate. I suspect most statesmen and jurists in any country of the time would have said that any state which couldn’t demand exclusive allegiance from those who lived under its protection wasn’t really a state.

Yes, except that there was never any ‘foreign potentate’. The King was their own king even though he may have resided away from them.  The issue of the state allocating full rights, seems at odds with the revolutionary notion of natural rights imbued in man.

Quote:

Most of the loyalists would never have sworn any oath at all, unless they held some sort of office. They had passively become subjects of the King (by having been born within his allegiance), and on July 4, 1776, they passively became citizens of the States in which they resided. As citizens they owed the same loyalty to the State that they had previously owed to the King as subjects. From the American point of view, their crime was in betraying their natural allegiance to the State of which they were citizens.

The idea of defining such a natural allegiance to a revolutionary regime is a dangerous one. An armed group comes to power against existing laws and you would accord allegiance to that group based on the fact that they were the de facto government? Is there no question of being released from an oath? Can a group acting against the law release others from their obligation to the law?

Of course this wasn’t an issue that was unknown to jurists of the day. Regime change in Europe was not uncommon and the issue of loyalty to prince and church and the criteria for lawful rebellion had been worked out at least in principle.

I would point to another republic that valued liberty as an example. In 1573 Henri de Valois as the elcted King of Poland enacted the Henrician Articles which effectively were constitutional and were reaffirmed by each subsequent elected King. Not only were there articles related to freedom of religion, establishing the rank of royal children as equal to that of the nobility, allowing nobles to choose if they were to participate in fopreign wars and guaranteeing compensation (they had a domestic obligation of free military service) and most importantly having the King acknowledge the right of the nobility to rebel and affirm the necessary conditions: "if anything has been done by Us against laws, liberties, privileges or customs, we declare all the inhabitants of the Kingdom are freed from obedience to Us". Of course the elected Parliament could determine before or after the fact if such conditions were met. Such a declaration is necessary because the authority to rebel against lawfully established authority is not seen as a part of the natural law but only of the positive law.

It would have seemed logical in a constitutional monarchy (as Britain clearly was post 1715) that the legally correct process would have been to negotiate such redress through legal means and obtain the consent of the monarch and/or parliament for their political or economic demands. It would have required skill and patience. The Colonist leadership certainly had the former. Such a process might look similar to the Jamestown Virginia strike of 1619 by which Polish craftsmen obtained the franchise from the Governor and Assembly.

Joe wrote, "It would have been asking a lot of any government in the late 18th century to accord full rights to someone who rejected allegiance to the state in which he lived in favor of allegiance to a foreign potentate. I suspect most statesmen and jurists in any country of the time would have said that any state which couldn’t demand exclusive allegiance from those who lived under its protection wasn’t really a state."

Agreed, except that I would have said "in any century…"

and

"...at any time…"

Back to the topic—its undoubtedly true, as noted earlier, that one reason for requiring renunciation of titles of nobility etc. was to foster social & political equality.  The other reason, pure and simple, was to sever any degree of allegiance or undue attachment to the country of origin.

In simple terms, to foreswear both the "fons" and the "honorum."  You wanna marry into my family, you first gotta divorce your old one.

In this regard, one cannot help but recall QE I’s aversion to foreign brands on her sheep…

Michael F. McCartney;79883 wrote:

Joe wrote, "It would have been asking a lot of any government in the late 18th century to accord full rights to someone who rejected allegiance to the state in which he lived in favor of allegiance to a foreign potentate. I suspect most statesmen and jurists in any country of the time would have said that any state which couldn’t demand exclusive allegiance from those who lived under its protection wasn’t really a state."

Agreed, except that I would have said "in any century…"

and

"...at any time…"

 

Back to the topic—its undoubtedly true, as noted earlier, that one reason for requiring renunciation of titles of nobility etc. was to foster social & political equality. The other reason, pure and simple, was to sever any degree of allegiance or undue attachment to the country of origin.

 

In simple terms, to foreswear both the "fons" and the "honorum." You wanna marry into my family, you first gotta divorce your old one.

 

In this regard, one cannot help but recall QE I’s aversion to foreign brands on her sheep…

Mike,

The Elizabethan issue of not accepting the French Order of St. Michael is a bit of a red herring here. Great Britain had in fact had no problem at the time of the American revolution with courtesy titles for foreign nobles… First Orange, then Hannoverian…

Leading Americans of the ilk of Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Payne… all also were granted French citizenship along with Kosciuszko. Except for Kosciuszko I believe no others declined this grant. The Americans themselves were not averse to grants of citizenship to folks who held and did not renounce foreign citizenship and nobility, rightly seeing this first of all as an honour bestowed upon leading men and second of all as not harming the interests of the United States.

I’ve been thinking about the date on which the requirementy to renounce nobility was enacted 1795 - just after the French terror, and maybe in response to it - perhaps as a reaction to the prospect that larger numbers of persecuted foreign nobles might seek refuge in the United States? Xenophobia has been a recurring theme in immigratyion laws in various places and noble orders are as a group, a minority who have been an easy target for discriminatory laws and repressive actions in many lands. Is there a basis for this view or is it simply a conspiracy theory notion.

Joseph McMillan;79858 wrote:

Actually, you’d be hard pressed to find many freedoms that Americans have but Brits don’t—or Frenchman, Germans, Spaniards, Swedes, Italians, etc., including especially freedom of religion and expression.  About the only thing you can’t do in the UK if you’re Catholic is succeed to the throne.  The Act of Settlement thus impinges on the liberties of only a very small number of people, and as far as I’ve heard none of them are complaining.

I assume Denny is referring the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Until last September it was enforcing a law that made it illegal to electronically transmit any statement "likely to expose a person or persons to contempt." The HRC concluded many, many statements conservatives in the US would find non-controversial were illegal. Especially statements on gay rights, the morality of Islam, etc.

If I’m right Denny will have to look elsewhere for current reasons Canadians are substantially less free then their American counterparts because the Commission decided that state violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom’s freedom of expression last September.

I doubt he’ll get very far. His major problem is that freedom is a relative term. For example Canadians have a right to medical care. This is a right Americans do not enjoy, and therefore arguably makes them a freer country. OTOH Americans have the right to choose their health insurance provider…

Nick

George, Ben and Nick, i am referring to the reprisals the Church got for preaching from the pulpit on the Church’s doctrinal issues regarding homsexual marriage and abortion. CNN., Fox News and CNS all reported several times on the reprisals the Church had from the authorities. just a few months ago there was another piece from CNS in which it reported the Holy See was concerned that despite what Nick mentioned there was still reprisal(s). i will try and dig it up, but i seen the piece on EWTN a couple of months ago.

now, not being as educated as many here, it seems to me that both the ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’ were under attack and in fact not applicable to Catholic(s) or at least Catholic clergy in the practice of their own faith. as such, that is less than complete freedom when compared to their southern federal republic countrymen and that wasn’t centuries ago. plain and simple.

and Ben and George the point about the French and Catholics in the early stages of the formation of Canada was in reply to the early stage issues that George had brought up. sorry i wasn’t clearer about that. i’m well aware of the protections in place for the French culture including language.

again, my question remains to my monarchist friends, do you honestly expect me, a loyalist of the federal republicanism flavor, to agree that the US would be better if we had a hereditary foreign queen as our sovereign instead of an elected president so we could have an office of arms as George had mentioned earlier? i just can’t believe that myself. so, maybe i misunderstand George’s point because there’s no way i’d want to trade in any part of this nations federal republicanism just for an office of arms with a seal from a monarch on a LP with my, or some part of my family’s coat of arms on it. sorry.

...do you honestly expect me, a loyalist of the federal republicanism flavor, to agree that the US would be better if we had a hereditary foreign queen as our sovereign instead of an elected president…

No.  American monarchists are a strange breed, and recognize that the US will never be a monarchy.  Still, there are historical and sentimental attachments to monarchies past and present.  After all, most citizens of the republic came from countries which were or are monarchies.

Re titles, I doubt many people of heraldic bent would turn one down, if offered by a legitimate fons honorum (say the Principality of Liechtenstein).  "I’m only an honorary Count."

Donnchadh;79916 wrote:

George, Ben and Nick, i am referring to the reprisals the Church got for preaching from the pulpit on the Church’s doctrinal issues regarding homsexual marriage and abortion. CNN., Fox News and CNS all reported several times on the reprisals the Church had from the authorities. just a few months ago there was another piece from CNS in which it reported the Holy See was concerned that despite what Nick mentioned there was still reprisal(s). i will try and dig it up, but i seen the piece on EWTN a couple of months ago.

For what it’s worth I just googled canada Catholic Church "freedom of speech." Some nasty stuff came up, but none of it was dated after Sept. 2009.
Donnchadh;79916 wrote:

now, not being as educated as many here, it seems to me that both the ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’ were under attack and in fact not applicable to Catholic(s) or at least Catholic clergy in the practice of their own faith. as such, that is less than complete freedom when compared to their southern federal republic countrymen and that wasn’t centuries ago. plain and simple.

If you’re gonna ding the Canadians for shit that’s already happened you have to do the same for Americans. And the US pre-Civil Rights Movement was a lot less free then Canada for black folks.
Donnchadh;79916 wrote:

and Ben and George the point about the French and Catholics in the early stages of the formation of Canada was in reply to the early stage issues that George had brought up. sorry i wasn’t clearer about that. i’m well aware of the protections in place for the French culture including language.

again, my question remains to my monarchist friends, do you honestly expect me, a loyalist of the federal republicanism flavor, to agree that the US would be better if we had a hereditary foreign queen as our sovereign instead of an elected president so we could have an office of arms as George had mentioned earlier? i just can’t believe that myself. so, maybe i misunderstand George’s point because there’s no way i’d want to trade in any part of this nations federal republicanism just for an office of arms with a seal from a monarch on a LP with my, or some part of my family’s coat of arms on it. sorry.

That’s not the major supposed advantage of a monarchy. Stability is probably the biggest element. It’s fairly simple to prove that monarchies are more stable then neighboring Republics. You’ll note that a list of the most stable countries would include most of the world’s monarchies, OTOH a list of unstable countries has to include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, half of Sub-Saharan Africa, and Yemen. The only monarchy that comes close is Thailand. The problem is figuring out whether monarchy causes stability, or is caused by stability. You can’t very well turn over the throne to your first-born son if you’re overthrown.

Personally I think everybody should stay pretty much as they are. The British Queen thing is working for Canada, why mess with it? Our system has it’s share of flaws, but declaring some random Dude Emperor of America wouldn’t actually fix any of them, so we should stick with the Federal Republic we’ve got.

Besides several Republics have set up heraldic offices, including Ireland.

Nick

Donnchadh;79916 wrote:

George, Ben and Nick, i am referring to the reprisals the Church got for preaching from the pulpit on the Church’s doctrinal issues regarding homsexual marriage and abortion. CNN., Fox News and CNS all reported several times on the reprisals the Church had from the authorities. just a few months ago there was another piece from CNS in which it reported the Holy See was concerned that despite what Nick mentioned there was still reprisal(s). i will try and dig it up, but i seen the piece on EWTN a couple of months ago.

I fully expect things to get heated in democracies. Especially around ‘hot button’ social and moral issues, whether it is war, the environment, sexual minorities, abortion, euthanasia… I also fully expect that citizens of differing perspectives will use institutions such as courts, human rights tribunals, media, etc. to advance their perspectives. It is fair game and I trust sorts itself out. So for example there are limits to speech. In Canada ‘hate speech’ is not protected and can in some cases be criminal. Not unusual in democracies and serves to protect vulnerable minorities, but of course it has been used as a tool both on the social right and left. The same with complaints about the tax exempt status of chiurch and social organizations that align themselves with partisan interests. Things can get heated and unpleasant but with good underlying written constitutions (and unwritten conventions) and good courts the process leads for the most part to reasonable outcomes (or legislative changes) on both sides of the border.

Quote:

now, not being as educated as many here, it seems to me that both the ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’ were under attack and in fact not applicable to Catholic(s) or at least Catholic clergy in the practice of their own faith. as such, that is less than complete freedom when compared to their southern federal republic countrymen and that wasn’t centuries ago. plain and simple.

I really don’t know what you are getting at. The Church is free to preach. It gets a rough ride in the liberal media and the direction of social change in legislation and even the interpretation of current laws is drifting more to the secular and the social left and away from positions held by conservative churces. This is not a failure of democracy but a reflection of it and I find myself often in the minority, but the challenge is to persuade over time the majority, isn’t it?

Quote:

again, my question remains to my monarchist friends, do you honestly expect me, a loyalist of the federal republicanism flavor, to agree that the US would be better if we had a hereditary foreign queen as our sovereign instead of an elected president so we could have an office of arms as George had mentioned earlier? i just can’t believe that myself. so, maybe i misunderstand George’s point because there’s no way i’d want to trade in any part of this nations federal republicanism just for an office of arms with a seal from a monarch on a LP with my, or some part of my family’s coat of arms on it. sorry.

I don’t expect to persuade you. My Queen is Canadian - there is a separation of the crowns and sovereignties - she is separately Queen of Canada and separately Queen of the UKGB&NI. The governments of both realms are completely distinct and separate.

The advantages to monarchy are in my view three-fold. The first is the existence of a non-partisan or supra-partisan head of state that is not also the effective head of government (executive). This allows the Head of State to act as a guarantor of rights and to resolvek partisan impasses that threaten good government (the recent prorogation of Parliament was a good example - whether you agree or disagree with the Crown’s (GG’s) decision it resolved a partisan impasse in Parliament). Secondly, there is also a fine continuity of the state across governments and an automatic tranistion on the death of the monarch that dampens the potentially disruptive impact of significant political swings that alter the makeup of government. Finally the role of the monarchy is iconic - it is a personification of the state, one that allows individuals to understand their responsibilities and entitlements in a concrete and relational way. There is a relational bond Queen and citizen with mutual obligations that are easy for all to understand.

At least one of these advantages can be achieved in a democracy by separating the roles of head of state and head of government (the non-executive President along with the executive Chancellor, or President and Premier), but the others are better served by constitutional monarchy. Were a country such as the united States (not that it ever will) wish a monarchy it should be in addition to and not instead of the role of the President who might retain all of the executive authority except for those specifically related to the head of state and even in those with the proviso that the monarch should in those matters receive advice that in general ought be followed.

The European monarchies are not a bad bunch. The UKGB&NI, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco and of course the Papacy (an elective monarchy). They are stable, free and prosperous. The republics of Europe are more of a mixed bag.

Denny, did you know that the Catholic Church has held to the view that monarchy is a desirable form of government for us people made in the image of God because it is in imitation of what has been revealed as the government of Heaven itself - a monarchy. For my part I think this is simplistic and God is more than a heavenly King, but monarchy has its support in the Church.

Donnchadh;79916 wrote:

it seems to me that both the ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’...................................................................

The United States is one of the few countries in which one has almost blanket freedom of speech. Canada is not the exception but rather within the norm for freedom of speech in developed countries. Most developed countries have much stricter libel, slander and hate speech laws. Again, the United States has very broad and generous religious protections that exceed those of most if not all other countries. In my own opinion, these protections are a double-edged sword but who would actually risk giving up these rights on a politician’s promise of improved national civility through legislation?

Does anybody know where I can find the icon of a dead horse being beaten? Perhaps our IT director could find it and make it available on this forum.

http://www.steveaddison.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/flogging dead horse.jpg

David, there you go…  there’s still some life in this one, but who knows for how long….

Nick, you’re joking, right? i won’t use the word you use as i would be hit with a ‘watch it’ but feel free to insert that word in where applicable…the ‘stuff’ you’re referring to…that MLK Jr fought against…that was in 2005?, 2006?, 2007?, or 2008? oh that’s right that was 50 plus years ago. the references were to current affairs not historical ones. of course that was also covered when George blasted the US for issues centuries ago and i countered with the then anti-Catholic and anti-French actions of Canada to show that both nations had made this mistake. so, please, let’s not mix the historical with the current. please keep them separate as we had until that. saying i need to comment on ‘stuff’ like that that we did is awful close to accusing me of not opposing it…and that would be bravo sierra Nick—been down that road before on another thread and don’t want ‘stuff’ ascribed to me that i either did not say directly, or imply, as in the previous thread, or wasn’t even on the map as in this one. i agree with you that it works for the Canuks and i have no problem with them, or others if they want it, having it. i don’t have an outright hatred of monarchies. i do of absolute monarchies, but not monarchies in general. i do, however, have a huge problem when others insist we be one, or should become one on the one extreme, or even suggest we were irrationally impulsive in removing that yoke (in this nation’s case), which was what was said just a couple of pages over by George (joking around of course cuz George isn’t the type to slap someone needlessly). i think you are, again, ascribing to me a hatred of all monarchies. that’s incorrect if you are. i’m only saying it isn’t for this American, nor, for this nation. there is a difference and i would hope people see it.

George, yes some popes have written on the betterment of a monarchy to that of a republic. of course historical context is important there, but by all means let’s not let that get in the way. truth be told i don’t recall ever being taught in 8 years of parochial school (yes we had the nuns with rulers in my school for part of those years) nor in reading the CCC that the Church’s official stance is that federal republicanism is a bad thing and that a monarchy should be used instead; i just don’t recall a doctrine, or dogma, of the Church being it’s faithful have to be monarchists instead of federal republicans. somehow i missed that. but, i will listen to either Fr. Peter or Fr. Byers correct me if that is now a doctrine, or dogma, of our faith.

now, sparing aside, i have no problem with a monarchy for those who want one. if a nation wants a monarchy then so be it. i don’t begrudge them that. in fact going back to the Irish side of this you mentioned earlier the republic that the Irish have has done more to erode and destroy Irish culture and heritage than the English monarchy ever did imo. so, i am not a fan of that particular republic at all and think that either a new one would be better or, perhaps, some sort of Irish (free of the English of course) monarchy would’ve been better. so i guess in some ways one could say i was a monarchist (i shudder ). but in the case of the USA there is no way in God’s green earth i could ever see the benefit of a foreign crown being our sovereign. i’ll take President Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, etc. ad nauseum with all their warts and mistakes over a foreign crown every day of the week. at least i get to elect my executive and he has term limits. that my friend is a great, great blessing and i would never give it up for any coat of arms from any office of arms as you had first mentioned. i also have to say that the idea of having a monarch that is simply ceremonial is queer at best. if you’re going to have a monarch they should be your full and acting executive imo. otherwise it’s only about pomp and circumstance and a lot of high falutin’ that, for me, is just a waste of money and time. i’m not in favor of an absolute monarchist either, as i think that is evil because it is absolute power and does corrupt absolutely, but i do believe if you’re gonna have one…they really should have executive power(s).

as to the titles, i’ve been of a ‘care less’ mindset overall for some time. i agree they should renounce them to become a citizen. but, even those that did, or their descendants, i personally would address them with that title out of courtesy if the situation warranted it—not if they were the sort to lord it over me though, because that’s just obnoxious. basically i sorta like the ‘honorary’ bit that was said a few posts up.

Denny,

I might have expected Church leaders in 1776 in the Colonies to condemn and even urge force against the revolution, much like Martin Luther strongly urged the forcible putting down of peasant rebellions in Germany referring to the traditional interpretation of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter 13.

I’ll note I might take a softer interpretation of this chapter as referring to model government along the lines outlined in St. Thomas Aquinas’ views on (elective) monarchy…

Quote:

Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Denny,

It really is a choice for Americans as to whether the US becomes a monarchy again. Spain did - with benefit for itself. Actually, if I were look at a parallel it might be the Roman Republic - on which to a certain extent the US modelled itself. The Roman Republic was a successor to monarchy but after a period in which it flourished it seemed to become embroiled in pointless wars, in economic decline, preoccupied with political infighting and power struggles, increasingly corrupt with leaders and officials become the clients of the wealthy. The introduction of the hereditary monarchy under Augustus began a period of a couple of centuries of peace (Pax Romana) in which economies flourished and there was order and good governmnet - a golden era in Rome’s history. Of course Rome after several centuries again went into a decline and fell for reasons well enumerated by Gibbons.

George Lucki;79878 wrote:

Yes, except that there was never any ‘foreign potentate’. The King was their own king even though he may have resided away from them.

I don’t mean he was a foreign potentate before 4 July 1776.  He became a foreign potentate on 4 July 1776.

Quote:

The idea of defining such a natural allegiance to a revolutionary regime is a dangerous one. An armed group comes to power against existing laws and you would accord allegiance to that group based on the fact that they were the de facto government?

Of course the founders of the American republic knew they were doing something outside the normal rules of the game.  That’s why they thought it necessary not only to declare independence but to explain formally why they were doing so.  One of the reasons given was one that would have resonated with Englishmen steeped in the Glorious Revolution of 1688:  "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."  Part of the conclusion was that "That these united Colonies ... are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown."

I state all of this from the American perspective.  Obviously the British had a different perspective.  Obviously those who opposed the move to independence were in a difficult position; so was everyone else at the time.

Let’s put this in a different context.  On November 11, 1918, Poland proclaimed its own independence from the former partitioning states.  What would the Polish government have done with a Polish citizen living in Grodno who gave aid and comfort to the Bolshevik Army during the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21?  Would he have been allowed to plead that Poland’s unilateral declaration of independence and reunification trumped the loyalty he owed to Russia by virtue of having been born in the Tsar’s domains?

Quote:

Can a group acting against the law release others from their obligation to the law?

This presumes that the Declaration of Independence was illegal.  From the American perspective it was no less legal than Parliament’s determination that James II had abandoned the throne in 1688.

Quote:

It would have seemed logical in a constitutional monarchy (as Britain clearly was post 1715) that the legally correct process would have been to negotiate such redress through legal means and obtain the consent of the monarch and/or parliament for their political or economic demands. It would have required skill and patience. The Colonist leadership certainly had the former. Such a process might look similar to the Jamestown Virginia strike of 1619 by which Polish craftsmen obtained the franchise from the Governor and Assembly.

I would invite your attention to the recitation of the history of such negotiations in the first 2/3 of the Declaration of Independence, but also to Edmund Burke’s speech in the House of Commons on 22 March 1775 on moving his resolutions for reconciliation with the American colonies.