Your View on the American Revolution?

[Maze]

I was in history class, and we were doing a debate on whether or not Britain should've put taxes on the colonists to support the mother country.

 

I was just wondering what TIF's opinion on it is.

 

I personally would've been a loyalist at the time.

[Range_This11]

Almost all colonists were loyalists, but when the taxation being imposed on you is to pay for something that is not directly affecting you (Britain's wars against France), then it becomes an unfair tax. Even up to the first battle, the colonists remained loyalists. They only wanted fair laws and representation.

[Maze]

Almost all colonists were loyalists, but when the taxation being imposed on you is to pay for something that is not directly affecting you (Britain's wars against France), then it becomes an unfair tax. Even up to the first battle, the colonists remained loyalists. They only wanted fair laws and representation.

But is the tax justified by the fact that Britain basically started America, and that they had won the French and Indian War for America?

[Giordano]

Just like the Iraqi War was won for us.

 

Its the best thing that happened to this country.

[Dizzle229]

Almost all colonists were loyalists, but when the taxation being imposed on you is to pay for something that is not directly affecting you (Britain's wars against France), then it becomes an unfair tax.

Can I please apply this quote to the CS&R thread?

[magekillr]

I probably would have been a loyalist. In general, the people complaining about the taxes were just a bunch of rich people, like usual. I mean, for all the harping about "no taxation without representation," they weren't very principled. They were just rich people who didn't want to pay taxes, and it showed when they wrote the Articles of Confederation. I doubt I'd have had money in the first place, and going to war over taxes is silly. Most people were loyalists themselves, and there wasn't even an urgency to go to war until Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

[Giordano]

I probably would have been a loyalist. In general, the people complaining about the taxes were just a bunch of rich people, like usual. I mean, for all the harping about "no taxation without representation," they weren't very principled. They were just rich people who didn't want to pay taxes, and it showed when they wrote the Articles of Confederation. I doubt I'd have had money in the first place, and going to war over taxes is silly. Most people were loyalists themselves, and there wasn't even an urgency to go to war until Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

Yeah they were rich people who didn't want to pay taxes, but you should know that when the rich gets taxed, they still have to make a profit- charging more to the regular cosumer.

 

Plus these taxes were different; they were colonial tariffs, taxes people in England didn't pay. I bet if Americans and British were charged the same taxes revolution wouldn't of happened. For a long time before they wanted to be considered as a new "Wales/Scotland" of sorts to the english: Part of the United Kingdom opposed as a colonial province.

 

But I don't know, there has to be more than that though, probably something with Freemasonry. San Martin, revolutionary of Argentina, Chile, and other South American countries was a loyal Spanish officer, went to London with the Freemasons for a bit, BAM, let's revolt against Spain in the colonies.

[Dizzle229]

Well as we all know, the Freemasons are responsible for every major event in human history.

[Zygimantas]

I think that the United States would have seceded from England eventually, even if they had not done so at the time that they did.

[Socc]

As Rocco said 1/3 supported the revolution, 1/3 were against it, and 1/3 didn't give a [cabbage]. The Colonists sent the declaration to england while acting like spoiled brats.

[Emerson]

Seeing as most of the more vocal members of TIF are British I think you can surmise what kind of feedback you'll receive for this.

 

As an American... I'll say the following. Personally I'm a fan of centralized, conservative government (Think to Grecian benevolent dictatorship) and I would say that as a whole, the organization that the English government offered was far better than the [lettuce] government that the Articles of Confederation created.

 

HOWEVER

 

The proclamation of 1763 clearly denied the colonists the land that was won in the seven years war THUS making the claim that the wars were fought for the colonies invalid. Furthermore the quartering of British troops and the gubernatorial offices overturning local judicial decisions is, in my views, unacceptable on any level. To that end I see a reason to promote change. When that change is stifled and taxes are imposed it just adds insult to injury. As for the rich complaining about the taxes, it was the rich northern elites that had amassed quite a bit of power and influence and pissing them off was the last thing you would want to do.

 

[patriotism] I'm proud of my nation for the outcome of the war however and I'm certainly glad it created my home country (granted I do have a good share of disapproval for the general America stigma and policies). That is part of being an American however, so thus I'll take the few negatives for the privilege (and it is a privilege) of living in the nation of my birth. [/patriotism]

[fakeitormakeit2]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

[sees_all1]

They did a pretty good job documenting their grievances. The founding fathers were very principled, you should read some of their original works.

[Emerson]

They did a pretty good job documenting their grievances. The founding fathers were very principled, you should read some of their original works.

With the exception of

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

Which hadn't actually happened yet. :razz:

 

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

 

In any case... the day the Brits consent to outside rule is the day they can preach about how standing your ground and maintaining independence isn't the way to solve problems.

[Giordano]

In any case... the day the Brits consent to outside rule is the day they can preach about how standing your ground and maintaining independence isn't the way to solve problems.

God Bless this Post.

[Zygimantas]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

It worked.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

It worked.

A lot of things work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option.

[Zygimantas]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

It worked.

A lot of thing work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option.

Well how do you absolutely know what the best option is without having to try everyone of them? It worked, a more civilized approach may not have.

[sees_all1]

They did a pretty good job documenting their grievances. The founding fathers were very principled, you should read some of their original works.

With the exception of

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

Which hadn't actually happened yet. :razz:

 

So they were 29 for 30 in the Declaration of Independence... big deal :shades:

 

And it wasn't just taxes they were pissed off about. Taxes are no reason to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Otherwise, you'd see the current Tea Party trying to sack Washington D.C., in the most literal of ways.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

It worked.

A lot of thing work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option.

Well how do you absolutely know what the best option is without having to try everyone of them? It worked, a more civilized approach may not have.

But should we not approach all situations with a peaceful and civil mindset though, even if we know that civility will fail?

[i_trollz_u]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

 

Main reason for reblellion though was that Britain refused the olive branch petition and to agree to deal with the colonists. Pretty much told the colonists to go [bleep] themselves.

[Zygimantas]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

It worked.

A lot of thing work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option.

Well how do you absolutely know what the best option is without having to try everyone of them? It worked, a more civilized approach may not have.

But should we not approach all situations with a peaceful and civil mindset though, even if we know that civility will fail?

Maybe.

[i_trollz_u]

too bad the british weren't very civil when they tried to take our guns away.

[Zygimantas]

too bad the british weren't very civil when they tried to take our guns away.

I learned from family guy that taking away or destroying guns is not the way to go.

[das1330]

I find the rebelling colonists were throwing a hissy fit. For so long the Stamp Act was accredited with being the tipping point, but it was repealed. Plus revolt is not a very sophisticated or civilized manner in dealing with national problems, as that only leads to more problems.

It worked.

A lot of thing work or occur. It doesn't mean is was the best/most civil/most peaceful option.

Well how do you absolutely know what the best option is without having to try everyone of them? It worked, a more civilized approach may not have.

But should we not approach all situations with a peaceful and civil mindset though, even if we know that civility will fail?

Maybe.

 

 

At the time the olive branch petition was considered to have a reasonable chance of success. The colonists legitimately thought that only parliament was out to get them; in their eyes the king was their friend, and they thought that by appealing to him they might find a peaceful solution to the problem. In reality the situation was reversed - the king was unreasonable, and parliament was willing to work with the colonies (though terribly inept at doing so)