Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.
Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;
the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.
You are truly an uneducated dolt.
And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.
When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?
Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:
1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...
Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.
Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."
2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.
3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall
1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.
Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;
the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.
You are truly an uneducated dolt.
And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.
When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?
Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:
1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...
Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.
Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."
2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.
3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall
Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].
"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."
James VI I on Divine Right
1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.
Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;
the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.
You are truly an uneducated dolt.
And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.
When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?
Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:
1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...
Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.
Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."
2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.
3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall
Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].
"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."
James VI I on Divine Right
Ever hear of this, you dope? Magna Carta (Latin; "Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin. It was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymede, on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England, on 15 June 1215. Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.
Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;
the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.
You are truly an uneducated dolt.
And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.
When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?
Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:
1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...
Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.
Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."
2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.
3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall
Ummmm: A SPEACH TO THE LORDS AND COMMONS OF THE PARLIAMENT AT WHITE-HALL, ON WEDNESDAY THE XXI. OF MARCH. ANNO 1609 [1610 new style].
"The State of MONARCHIE is the supremest thing vpon earth: For Kings are not onely GODS Lieutenants vpon earth, and sit vpon GODS throne, but euen by GOD himselfe they are called Gods. There bee three principall similitudes that illustrate the state of MONARCHIE: One taken out of the word of GOD; and the two other out of the grounds of Policie and Philosophie. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certaine relation compared to the Diuine power. Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is trewly Parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And lastly, Kings are compared to the head of this Microcosme of the body of man."
James VI I on Divine Right
Ever hear of this, you dope? Magna Carta (Latin; "Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin. It was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymede, on the bank of the River Thames near Windsor, England, on 15 June 1215. Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. There are four references to ‘Divine’ in Declaration of Independence:
1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’
2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”
3) Supreme Judge of the world, and
4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.
This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
And the counter-argument of the times was that the monarch derived his power from God, referred to as the divine right of kings.
Therefore it became a contest between mortal men over which side was God on;
the question of course was not settled by some God, but by men with guns.
You are truly an uneducated dolt.
And to prove it, you persist in parading your ignorance in public.
When did the belief in such 'divine rights of kings' end?
Get a pencil and paper, and prepare to be educated:
1. Quia Emptoresis a statute passed in the reign of Edward I of England in1290 that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation (the practice by which tenants, holding land under the king or other superior lord, carved out new and distinct tenures in their turn by sub-letting or alienating a part of their lands), instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
By effectively ending the practice of subinfeudation, Quia Emptores hastened the end of feudalism in England,...
Direct feudal obligations were increasingly being replaced by cash rents and outright sales of land which gave rise to the practice of livery and maintenance or bastard feudalism, the retention and control by the nobility of land, money, soldiers and servants via direct salaries, land sales and rent payments.
Quia Emptores - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. The result of Edward I reforms was that England now had a justice system based on contracts, adversarial jurisprudence, and traditional ideas of fairness and property rights that no king or bishop could sweep away.
Again?
"....no king or bishop could sweep away."
2. By restricting the jurisdiction of clerks to church law, Edward I created a secular profession of lawyers and judges.
3. The next step leading to a capitalist society was the fact that the kingdom of England had no internal barriers to trade, a major difference from other European realms: it was a ready-made national market for goods.
See "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall
PC is right that almost all colonists believed in a form of God.
Thus, Jefferson used language that both Christians and non-Christians could accept.
An aside: I see that she has achieved a mediocre understanding of Economics 200.
no, she doesn't. she copies and pastes things, things that often do not have anything to do with the point she is trying to make (assuming we can find one under her egregious overuse of randomly inserted numbered points. when she does manage to post something on topic, it is generally to somebody else's opinion that she is trying to pass off as factual evidence.Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.
Wonder why Chic and the best American historians do not see history the same? Does Chic know more history than the noted historians and presidential experts that rate the presidents?
Since Truman left office, historians have rated the presidents fifteen times, and In those fifteen ratings since 1962, Truman was rated from fifth to ninth best American president.
no, she doesn't. she copies and pastes things, things that often do not have anything to do with the point she is trying to make (assuming we can find one under her egregious overuse of randomly inserted numbered points. when she does manage to post something on topic, it is generally to somebody else's opinion that she is trying to pass off as factual evidence.Thanks PC. You offer citations and links to the facts you present but rarely get a reasoned response from your detractors. That they don't like what you present is clear but they offer nothing in return. I look forward to your posts.
never forget, this is the woman who claimed she had the 'facts' on what the world would be like if obama had lost in 2008
you left out that she routinely posts opinions as factual evidence.No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.
You truly do academic scholarship no credit.
No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.
You truly do academic scholarship no credit.
you left out that she routinely posts opinions as factual evidence.No lie, PC, you do copy and paste, you force conclusions that do not logically derive from evidence, your preconceptions bias your thesis and your work.
You truly do academic scholarship no credit.
but yep, that's pc in a nutshell. no original thought, no logical conclusions.
