Revolutionary War

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 17 2005, 12:30 AM'] 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. [/quote]
A "representative" from an other country is no representative at all. What would you think if the U.S. ruled Canada and appointed someone from Virginia to "represent" your province in Canada?


You call the American War for Independence the "Second British Civil War" one more time, and I'll launch an invasion of of Canada and whup your sorry Queen-kissing Canuck arse!!!

(Metallica's "Don't Tread on Me" blares loudly in the background)

[Don John of Austria]

You still have not answered my questions.

[Ellenita]

[quote]You call the American War for Independence the "Second British Civil War" one more time, and I'll launch an invasion of of Canada and whup your sorry Queen-kissing Canuck arse!!!  [/quote]

You'll be relieved to know we don't call it that in the mother country!



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

Gosh Winchester, how terribly disappointing....we were about to take a vote on whether to let you convert.....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 17 2005, 06:29 PM']
You'll be relieved to know we don't call it that in the mother country!

[/quote]
I didn't think so - I'd never heard it called that before by anybody!

You Brits are cool, though. Seriously.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 17 2005, 06:36 PM'] I didn't think so - I'd never heard it called that before by anybody!

You Brits are cool, though. Seriously. [/quote]
I have heard it called that before.

[ardillacid]

[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]



Ditto, igualmente

[God Conquers]

I had a conservative (canadian but an anglophile) british history prof who called it that... I think its funny.

Sure it's not ideal. And of course it would not work today... there would be no need for it.

Think about how uimpractical it would have been to have American reps risking their lives for 6 weeks at sea to go to and from each parliamentary session! This way it could be done via correspondence.

[God Conquers]

I had a conservative (canadian but an anglophile) british history prof who called it that... I think its funny.

Sure it's not ideal. And of course it would not work today... there would be no need for it.

Think about how uimpractical it would have been to have American reps risking their lives for 6 weeks at sea to go to and from each parliamentary session! This way it could be done via correspondence.

Not all the reasons for this practice were sinister.

[son_of_angels]

Actually, one of the deals on the bargaining table for preventing the revolutionary war would have allowed the colonists to select their own members of Parliament, thus the "no taxation without representation" nonsense would have been dealt with. However, American diplomats were specifically instructed not to allow the British to make a deal with the colonies to end the war on the condition of American representation in the Parliament. You see, Americans, as is often the case, were not willing to PARTICIPATE in a political process, only to CRITICISE it. Alas, not much has changed.

However, that being said, the fact is that while the war may not have been just, I always say "God favors the one who wins." See, God used us poor, burgeouise smugglers as a scourge on a rebellious Anglican nation, in order to create the possibility of English-speaking Catholics, like you and me, to settle in places like Maryland (yuck! yankee-land) and eventually to come back stronger than ever. God favors those who win, and the most unjust side of any war is generally the one who loses.

[Ellenita]

[quote]I have heard it called that before. [/quote]

The crucial part of my statement being [i]in the mother country[/i]!


[quote]You Brits are cool, though. Seriously.  [/quote]

Ah Socrates, you revealed your true colours in this thread and the one on the crusades....it's going to take more than a little flattery to wheedle your way back into our hearts!



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





Ditto, igualmente [/quote]

No problem......we're picky about who let in the gang anyway....hence the creation of the colonies where we duly deported all our undesirables!

[ardillacid]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='May 18 2005, 12:11 AM'] I always say "God favors the one who wins." [/quote]
An interesting line of thought

[Mikhail]

Okay, I didn't read this whole thread and what everyone said, so I may be being redundant here. What I did read however, is typical of attitudes people have about history. They have limited knowledge of it and what they do know they got from textbooks and other such sources. Remember, history is written by the victors.

Comparing the US government today and the one that the founding fathers created is like comparing apples and oranges. The US has discarded many of the principles that it was founded on and has been going downhill ever since Lincoln illegally invaded VA in 1861.

The British were exploiting the American colonies, just as they exploited every other colony. Every other European power did the same. This exploitation only stopped in the last five decades.

I'd like to quote Dr Benjamin Franklin (not an exact quote, just off the top of my head). "I would be happy to be called an Englishman, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. To call someone an Englishman without those rights it like calling an ox a bull: he's thankful for the honour but would rather have restored what's rightfully his."

The colonists were being treated unfairly by the British, paying taxes was only a minor issue. More of a staw that broke the camel's back. They were being denied trial by jury, their homes were being illegally invaded, their trading rights infringed upon (they were required to trade only with England, which meant that English could pay them less and then sell at a high profit.

It's as simple as this. It's called a revolution if it succeeds and a rebellion if it fails. History is written by the victors.

There is much to say on this, and since I didn't read the whole thread, some of you might want to ask some more questions over again.

[ardillacid]

Hmm...Ok, this question kind of relates

The Catholic Church teaches that there must be a reasonable chance that there will be victory when you declare war, otherwise it is unjust.

Couldnt this war be declared unjust by these circumstances? cleary america had no chance in hell until saratoga. By every reason, the British should have kicked our asses.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:25 PM']Hmm...Ok, this question kind of relates

The Catholic Church teaches that there must be a reasonable chance that there will be victory when you declare war, otherwise it is unjust.

Couldnt this war be declared unjust by these circumstances? cleary america had no chance in hell until saratoga. By every reason, the British should have kicked our asses.
[right][snapback]610095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No we bviously had a reasonable chance of success we won. Further the reasonable chance of Success condition is enot a very effective arguement, If God is with you who can stand agianst. And tat condition is excused when defending key values. No I don't think that will work here.

[ardillacid]

People also win the lottery, but there isn't a reasonable chance.

Poland had God on their side but still lost against the nazis, and their country was ravaged. God allows evil. Just because your side is just doesn't mean you win automatically. And just because you are evil doesn't mean you lose automatically.
Define "key values." they had life, libery and the pursuit of happiness.