Please elaborate! Brits/West Indies trade. Slave uprisings. Intolerable Acts. Legislative overreach.
Sounds like a most excellent vanity!
As you know SC was founded by Barbados’ sugar barons as a source for beef and rice. Trade between the Colonies and the British West Indies was brisk. Each had valuable resources the other needed, were in close proximity along natural trade routes, spoke a common language and shared common laws and customs. Leading up to and during the Revolution the Colonial government actively sought rebellion among Canada and the British West Indies. They didn’t join because they needed British power to keep their slaves down.
So I was watching Guelzo’s “The American Revolution” from the Teaching Company. He states that the BWI were very upset at the Intolerable Acts and demanded they be rescinded. It ruined trade for them and cost their economies dearly. The line that got me though was this: The BWI accused Parliament of “legislative overreach.”
I’d never heard the term before. I’d thought about and heard of executive and judicial overreach, but, although it is obvious and we recognize its example every day, no one ever talks about legislative overreach.
It goes to the heart of our Republic and American Exceptionalism. Our Rights come from no man, but God and God above all else. Natural Rights therefore cannot be taken away legislatively, judicially or by executive fiat. They are unalienable. It’s a stream of thought that’s been lost.
That comment by Guelzo re-sparked it in me. It is solid proof for limited government. What do you think?