Revolutionary War

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 9 2005, 03:00 AM'] The central issue of injustice was that England was using the colonies as a means of building wealth for the British Crownm, yet would not allow the colonists any say in how they were governed (as Englishmen were). [/quote]
Very few Englishmen had the vote in the mid-18th century.

[Ellenita]

[quote]The British considered the colonials second-class citizens, of lower rank and value. [/quote]































































:ph34r:

[Socrates]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='May 9 2005, 06:45 AM'] Very few Englishmen had the vote in the mid-18th century. [/quote]
They had representatives in Parliament. The American colonies did not.

To the anti-patriotic Americans: Go to Canada or England, or shut up!
To the rest of the world: Don't tread on me!!!

Edited May 9, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 8 2005, 08:07 PM'] Well That sounds like Texas to me, but some how I think if we decided to leave the feds wouldn't let us go, I mean they didn't last time. Why are we controled by people from Maine and New York? [/quote]
No argument, there, cowboy! I'm all for secession!

[quote]The North could have kept it's troops at home and let the South just become there own country[/quote]

Absolutely!

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 9 2005, 04:52 PM'] They had representatives in Parliament. The American colonies did not.

To the anti-patriotic Americans: Go to Canada or England, or shut up!
To the rest of the world: Don't tread on me!!! [/quote]

I started this thread hoping someone could give me a suitable answer to the question, apparently I've got on some peoples nerves. I apologize if I offended you Socrates, but I like to have reasons about why I believe what I do.

[God Conquers]

You mean the Second British Civil War?

Unjust.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 12 2005, 11:18 AM']
I started this thread hoping someone could give me a suitable answer to the question, apparently I've got on some peoples nerves. I apologize if I offended you Socrates, but I like to have reasons about why I believe what I do. [/quote]
I think the central issue is whether a country has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of a colonial empire governed an overseas country, or whether it has a right to be self-governed.

I think local autonomy and self-governence is more in line with principles of subsidiarity.

And the fact that the American government has fallen away from many of its early ideals is irrelevant to the rightness of the original cause. Both U.S. and British governments are now much more tyrannical than they were in the 18th century.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 15 2005, 05:55 PM'] I think the central issue is whether a country has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of a colonial empire governed an overseas country, or whether it has a right to be self-governed.

I think local autonomy and self-governence is more in line with principles of subsidiarity.

And the fact that the American government has fallen away from many of its early ideals is irrelevant to the rightness of the original cause. Both U.S. and British governments are now much more tyrannical than they were in the 18th century. [/quote]
[quote]I think the central issue is whether a country has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of a colonial empire governed an overseas country, or whether it has a right to be self-governed.[/quote]

You've already loaded your statement, somthing is not a country until it is independent so the statement should read. " whether a dependency has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of an empire ( Colonial or not is meaningless colonies actually owe more to there mother country not less) who's government is overseas, or whether it has a right to be self governed. "

To this I ask what does being overseas have to do with anything? Is Hawaii less beholding to the US than Virgina is? what defines a dependency or in your words " country" could harris county become it's own couontry and just abandon Texas how about the stretch around the entire interior Gulf coast with simular economic interest say 200 miles inland, what makes a dependency a " country"?



[quote]I think local autonomy and self-governence is more in line with principles of subsidiarity.[/quote]

Well I agree this is why I am a fuedalist, butthat seems quite irrelevent here as "local" autonomy was not really desired by the founders.


[quote]And the fact that the American government has fallen away from many of its early ideals is irrelevant to the rightness of the original cause.[/quote] I also agree with you here excepting of course that the original ideas where evil.

[quote]
Both U.S. and British governments are now much more tyrannical than they were in the 18th century.[/quote]

Totall agree wityh you here with out provision.

[God Conquers]

[quote]They had representatives in Parliament. The American colonies did not.[/quote]

This is 100% not true.

Every American Colony had a representative in parliament.

Every British Colony did in fact.

Bermuda, Canada, and Ireland didn't see anything wrong with their representation.

The American colonies had representatives named for them, MPs from other parts of England who represented their interests in parliament and voiced their grievances. They chose, unlike Canadians and Australians, to have a violent revolution instead of steadily gaining the confidence of the crown and petitioning for self government.

[Don John of Austria]

bump for socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 15 2005, 09:24 PM']
This is 100% not true.

Every American Colony had a representative in parliament.

Every British Colony did in fact.

Bermuda, Canada, and Ireland didn't see anything wrong with their representation.

The American colonies had representatives named for them, MPs from other parts of England who represented their interests in parliament and voiced their grievances. They chose, unlike Canadians and Australians, to have a violent revolution instead of steadily gaining the confidence of the crown and petitioning for self government. [/quote]
"No taxation without representation" was the American protest.

Having "respresentatives" named for them by England is not the same as having representatives from America who would actually represent the American people.

And, of course, many Irishmen would dispute the fact that they were/are totally fine with English rule. (No need to go into that!)

The fact is Americans were beginning to see their own interests as different from that of England's. They wanted to rule themselves rather than be dominated by the interests of a nation across the Atlantic Ocean. (And this distance actually meant a lot in the 18th Century, when sea voyages were long and hazardous!)

Why people are arguing about something that was settled 240 years ago is beyond me. England has recognized America as an independent nation since the Treaty of Paris. Does anyone in America want to go back to being under British rule? Then they can move to England! End of story!

Personally, I'm proud to be American! If I wanted to be Canadian instead, I'd move to Canada. I'm not going to rant against the Canadians, English or anyone else. We may not agree on everything, but we can live in peace.

[God Conquers]

The argument is whether or not the Second British Civil War was a just one. You argue that it was. Others are arguing that it was not. Does it mean those Americans arguing the point want to go back under British rule? No. Does it mean I do? No. It's an argument.

"No taxation without Representation" was loaded propaganda. The truth was that they DID have representatives, even if they were not Americans.

Was this slogan fair? No way.

1) They had representatives, as stated earlier.

2) Everyone in England was taxed, whether they had representation or not, whether they had the vote or not.

3) The tax burden on Americans was almost 10 times less than on normal Englishmen. So, extra taxes and customs were placed on goods coming into America, most notably on stamps and on tea.

Why were the British taxed so heavily? The Americans were incurring onto French and Indian land past the Appalachian mountains and, not surprisingly, being attacked there because of it. Those Americans living outside of their borders demand protection, and the British Crown builds forts and maintains armies to protect them. Who paid for this? The British people. When some of this cash was demanded from the Americans in the aforementioned taxes and customs, they revolted, not wanted to pay for their own protection.

This is why the participants of the Boston Tea Party were dressed as Native peoples.

4) The Quebec Act. The British Crown allows the practice of Catholicism and limited (Catholic) self governance north of the "border" (yay!)

Puritans are pissed.

5) Ah the Tea... and the Boston Tea Party.

A slight tax is placed on Tea, an incredibly popular item, not readily grown in the colonies.

This tax alters the price of tea for the normal consumer.

This hurts tea merchants and prompts tea smuggling.

Tea smugglers make MASSIVE profits at this time and enjoy these profits and some become powerful (and rich) people. But how to keep their business going indefinately?

A) Keep the British pissed off and taxing tea.

B) Bust up those Loyalist Tea Mechant's product.

C) Join and help a Revolution, become legitimate and sole merchants of tea in new country.

No surprise here... #1 tea smuggler in late 18th Century American Colonies..... JOHN ADAMS!

So we see that the real reasons for the war were not so noble. And not very just at all.

[philothea]

Ah, history is so often ugly. Kind of like the present, I suppose.

Alas.

[Winchester]

It may have been a dubious war, but I'm sure glad I'm no Englishman.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Winchester' date='May 17 2005, 02:16 AM'] It may have been a dubious war, but I'm sure glad I'm no Englishman. [/quote]
Your avatar disagrees.