Was the American Revolution justified?

[Hegel]

Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west, and the border situation was quite hostile at that time. They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians. One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement. While this was quite reprehensible, lets think about why the colonists came to the U.S. anyway. For religious reasons, (i.e. breaking the LAW of England against non-Anglicans, not exactly law-maker materials.) for judicial reasons (e.g. being sent as an indentured servant from the debtor prisons) or being poor or the youngest son of a noble. These were all reasons not to let them into Parliement which was reserved for the Lords in the House of Lords, and for the burger class of the towns in the House of Commons. Almost none of the people that came to the U.S. were inheriting nobles or powerful enough to be in the House of Commons, after all if they had been they would have stayed in England.

So do you have any other info that would be relevent to the debate? And do you think the American Revolution was justified?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west,

Which they started.

They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians.

Which wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't gone beating up on them in the first place.

One document that I think does the best job of showing the mindset of the Colonists against the British was the Tryon Declaration of Independence, drafted and signed in August of 1775 by a band of patriots in Tryon County, NC who, I'm proud to say, included my great*6 grandfather Thomas Beatty:

The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary; and this engagement we will continue in for the preservation of those rights and liberties which the principals of our Constitution and the laws of God, nature and nations have made it our duty to defend. We therefore, the subscribers, freeholders and inhabitants of Tryon County, do hereby faithfully unite ourselves under the most solemn ties of religion, honor and love to our county, firmly to resist force by force, and hold sacred till a reconciliation shall take place between Great Britain and America on Constitutional principals, which we most ardently desire, and do firmly agree to hold all such persons as inimical to the liberties of America who shall refuse to sign this association.

So, they were hardly the lawless radicals you make them out to be. They were loyal subjects of the British Crown who, quite simply, had had enough.

[fhios]

We rebelled; and we built the first real democracy on Earth. Does someone have a problem with that?

[Hegel]

Originally posted by shanek
So, they were hardly the lawless radicals you make them out to be. They were loyal subjects of the British Crown who, quite simply, had had enough.

What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over. And I would say that people who go around picking off soldiers from forests may possibly fall under the category of lawless brigand. Since I'm taking a U.S. History class right now I think it was fairly clear that the Americans as much as the British wanted a war with the French and the Indians (well more the land then the war, but you can't have one without the other).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over.

The combat had already started! King George declared them rebels when they dared stand up for their rights, and he turned on them. What were they supposed to do?

Remember Concord and Lexington?

And I would say that people who go around picking off soldiers from forests may possibly fall under the category of lawless brigand

Oh, you mean the way British forces hid in forests and picked off French soldiers and the Indians who had allied with them?

Since I'm taking a U.S. History class right now I think it was fairly clear that the Americans as much as the British wanted a war with the French and the Indians

Why on Earth would you figure that? It's not like they had run out of room in the colonies. And the settlers had for the most part enjoyed peaceful relations with the Indians until the French and Indian War.

(well more the land then the war, but you can't have one without the other).

Two-word rebuttal: Louisiana Purchase.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek

Two-word rebuttal: Louisiana Purchase.

Didn't the French sell that largely because they couldn't defend it, and rather than let it sit there like a ripe apple they figured they could get a few bucks for it?

I mean, if that is true, isn't that kinda the same thing as land through war, except one party saw the writing on the wall and got what they could for it?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Didn't the French sell that largely because they couldn't defend it, and rather than let it sit there like a ripe apple they figured they could get a few bucks for it?



I thought Napolean sold it because he needed money to pay for his war.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by shanek
Why on Earth would you figure that? It's not like they had run out of room in the colonies. And the settlers had for the most part enjoyed peaceful relations with the Indians until the French and Indian War.


Right...the Americans enjoyed perfect relations with the Indians except for the Pequot Wars, and the Black Island raid, and slaughtering Indians for their food when they first arrived, and...after all the first Thanksgiving (to GOD not the Indians) was celebrated in Virginia, and was celebrated by this Plantation owner as a thanks to God for surviving Indian raids and for surviving the winter (mostly by stealing food from the Indians). Yep! Sounds like a perfectly plummy relationship to me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
Right...the Americans enjoyed perfect relations with the Indians except for the Pequot Wars, and the Black Island raid, and slaughtering Indians for their food when they first arrived, and...

Well, the history of my family in this area shows otherwise. They settled west of the Catawba river. East of the Catawba were the friendly Catawba, on the west the more vicious Cherokee. Those two tribes fought like cats and dogs with each other. But oddly enough, they always fought around the white settlers. Their relationship with them, if not friendly, was at least indifferent.

Until the French and Indian war, that is. That changed everything...

So we went from SOME Indian tribes being hostile to MOST of them being hostile.

[Hegel]

Well, I must say that your family's history is farly unique because for American history as a whole the relationship with the Indians was any thing but cordial. They tended to raid back and forth, and ally with different factions of Indians in order to destroy tribes for the purpose of land conquest. So for the colonies on a whole the French and Indian war was NOT a start to the conflict but a continuation of it. I'm a bit suspicious about your history however, because the English generally allied with the enemy tribes to the French, so I would excpect that the English were allied with either the Cherokee or the Catabwa.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by shanek


The combat had already started! King George declared them rebels when they dared stand up for their rights, and he turned on them. What were they supposed to do?

Remember Concord and Lexington.

Previously you mentioned how King George denied the colonist their rights, and declared them revolutionaries. As a matter of fact King George had very little to do with the decisions made in England at that time. Parliment was running things almost exclusively in England at the time, because George was in fear of his life. King George was afraid, because Charles the II (I think, it could have been the 1st) had been executed by Oliver Cromwell, who led Parliment in rebellion against the King. The Monarchy was eventually reinstated, but the Parliment definately now held the upper hand. So while the colonists all hated King George, and despised him after he "refused to grant them their rights," there was in reality nothing that he could do.

I do remember Concord and Lexington being turning points in the Revolutionary war, but I don't quite see how that is relevant to the causes of the Revolutionary War.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shanek


Which they started.

Which wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't gone beating up on them in the first place.


Pfffssshh!!! So the British were responsible for the Napoleonic wars?!!?! Is Shanek a Malachi sock-puppet?

Then lets get to the 'they'. At the time, the colonists were British so all of this 'they' stuff is nonsense since everybody was on the same side before the sooting started.

Basically, the gripe was about taxation, which the colonists didnt want to pay but was needed becasue the colonies needed to be defended. Even so, massive concessions were made- to the extent that the only tax being levied was on tea. TEA!. Funny how you all still pay taxes tho'...and on more than just tea.

[JAR]

One of the things that I find very regrettable about the American Revolution is it destroyed the concept that Americans are a branch of the English people. Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.

Why fight for the existence of an ethnic group that's not recognized? People like me could fight for the existence of white people, but then we'd be called white supremacists.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by JAR
Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.


JAR, the word 'ethnic' has been effectively redefined as 'non-caucasian' Not just in the US either.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by JAR
Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.
Nonsense! You're Americans. I thought that was the whole point, to get away from the petty prejudices of the past and start again. You know, all men being created and all...

Originally posted by Hegel
One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement.
If in Britain, people of equivalent status to the colonists didn't have representation, I've never seen the logic in concluding that this makes the colonists' actions unjustified. Perhaps the problem was with the British for not following the lead of the colonists?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by JamesM
Perhaps the problem was with the British for not following the lead of the colonists?

There was actually a significant movement in that direction in the UK.

[Zep]

An interesting sidelight, as told to me by a friend in Lexington a few years ago.

When the colonists marched from Concord and Lexington to Boston Harbour to express their anger, they started out in a pub and were drinking when they made their decision to do more public disobedience than just shout. So off they set, but on the way they stopped at a few more pubs, consumed more drink, and apparently gathered more of the drinkers in the pubs on the way.

So by the time they got to Boston Harbour later that night, they were in a right mess, barely capable of standing - the olde tyme equivalent of some British football hooligans at closing time after their team lost (I'm using my friend's words here!). It was as this time that they decided to throw the tea chests, the subject of some tax issues, off the ships and into the harbour.

So the "Boston Tea Party" was actually a drunken mob making a hell of a racket as they tossed the tea overboard - apparently the harbour nightwatchmen were either threatened or just plain thumped insensible, even though they were colonists anyway. Anyway, having done the deed, and with the British militia now roused by the noise and on the way to quell the riot, the mob then repaired to the nearest pub on the way home to sleep it off. More things then ensued...

Of course, this is totally anecdotal for me, but my Lexington friend, apparently a distant descendant of one of the mob!, swears it is pretty much true.

Was the American Revolution justified? On the whole, yes, but none of these revolutions are ever as neat and tidy and uncomplicated as they are made to appear later. Which is why they are still discussed today!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
Well, I must say that your family's history is farly unique because for American history as a whole the relationship with the Indians was any thing but cordial. They tended to raid back and forth, and ally with different factions of Indians in order to destroy tribes for the purpose of land conquest.

Understand that it was the British government trying to conquer the land. All the settlers wanted to do was move in somewhere and live there; they did that by getting grants from the government for land which the government had already taken. They had no interest in raiding, or conquering, or obtaining more land.

It's clear, at least from the area my family settled in (which is the only area I've checked out in detail), that the tribes knew this and weren't about to antagonize anyone they knew wasn't a threat to them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
Previously you mentioned how King George denied the colonist their rights, and declared them revolutionaries. As a matter of fact King George had very little to do with the decisions made in England at that time. Parliment was running things almost exclusively in England at the time, because George was in fear of his life.

In England, maybe. But Parliament never had any authority over the American colonies. That was all King George's doing. And many in Parliament supported the colonists.

I do remember Concord and Lexington being turning points in the Revolutionary war, but I don't quite see how that is relevant to the causes of the Revolutionary War.

It wasn't a war at the time, not from the colonists' point of view. It was hostilities against the colonies by the Crown.

[WildCat]

The French and Indian War, the French and Indians both lost! :D

Actually, there were plenty of Indians on the British side also, even during the Revolution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Pfffssshh!!! So the British were responsible for the Napoleonic wars?!!?!

Did I say that?

They did start the French and Indian war, by having troops move into the forests and shoot on sight at French soldiers and any allied Indians. In fact, the one who fired the shot credited for starting the war was a young Major in the British Army by the name of George Washington...

Then lets get to the 'they'. At the time, the colonists were British so all of this 'they' stuff is nonsense since everybody was on the same side before the sooting started.

Total bull$#!7! There were most certainly two different sides: the Crown, which kept exploiting the colonies, and the colonies, who were tired of being exploited.

Basically, the gripe was about taxation, which the colonists didnt want to pay but was needed becasue the colonies needed to be defended. Even so, massive concessions were made- to the extent that the only tax being levied was on tea. TEA!. Funny how you all still pay taxes tho'...and on more than just tea.

Seems like you omitted two important words... "without representation." Taxation without representation.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shanek
Understand that it was the British government trying to conquer the land. All the settlers wanted to do was move in somewhere and live there; they did that by getting grants from the government for land which the government had already taken. They had no interest in raiding, or conquering, or obtaining more land.

Are you being serious?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shanek


Did I say that?

They did start the French and Indian war, by having troops move into the forests and shoot on sight at French soldiers and any allied Indians.

Yes. Britian was at war with France. That means French soldiers are the enemy you dumbass!!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shanek

Seems like you omitted two important words... "without representation." Taxation without representation.

And so they dropped all tax. Except on tea. You want to go to war over tea.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Hegel
Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west, and the border situation was quite hostile at that time. They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians. One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement. While this was quite reprehensible, lets think about why the colonists came to the U.S. anyway. For religious reasons, (i.e. breaking the LAW of England against non-Anglicans, not exactly law-maker materials.) for judicial reasons (e.g. being sent as an indentured servant from the debtor prisons) or being poor or the youngest son of a noble. These were all reasons not to let them into Parliement which was reserved for the Lords in the House of Lords, and for the burger class of the towns in the House of Commons. Almost none of the people that came to the U.S. were inheriting nobles or powerful enough to be in the House of Commons, after all if they had been they would have stayed in England.

So do you have any other info that would be relevent to the debate? And do you think the American Revolution was justified?

I've actually done some work on this issue myself.

The conclusion that I have come to is yes and no.

Technically by the laws of the day, no, they were not justified. But, by the fact that they didn't like the laws of the day, sure, I guess that any revolution can be justified in that manner.

Here are all the claims:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing importance, unless suspended in their
operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so
suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of
large districts of people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature,
a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places
unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of
their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing
them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of
the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers,
incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at
large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean
time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without,
and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by
refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary
powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of
their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither
swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their
substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies
without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and
superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our
laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended
Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of
these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by
Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it
at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the
same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable
Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our
Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of
his Protection and waging War against us.

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

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the
high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the
executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has
endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers,
the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare,
is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and
conditions.

Here is what I figured out. Yes, most of these claims are true, there were a few that I was not able to establish as true, but that does not mean that they were not true. However, as you point out some of them were justified, and many have two sides to the story. The ones that are the most suspect are the ones towards the end.

Here is what is true though:

The British Crown was losing money in their fights all around the world and it was very costly for them to maintain a force in the American colonies to defend them from the French and Indians. The main people being attacked were the people on the western frontier.

Because of this they imposed a tax, but that tax mainly affected the wealthy on the east coast. They didn't like this because they felt that they were paying for the protection of the frontiersmen, which they didn't want to do.

In the House of Commons they really could not understand the opposition to taxation because from their point of view the Crown had spent huge sums of money and resources helping to establish the colonies, and here, after all that and the continued cost of running the colonies these people didn't want to pay anything to help with the cost.

There are other issues too though.

#1 The British outlawed slavery in Europe in 1772.

There was significant dialog between the British and the colonists on this matter and the British were making it clear that they planned to outlaw slavery in the colonies as well. The Americans who wanted the revolution greatly opposed this. They claimed that it was an infringement on their freedom to not allow them to enslave people.

At the time of the revolution there was slavery in all 13 colonies, and in fact one of the highest concentrations of slaves was in New York.

With the onset of the Revolutionary War the British declared that they would free all blacks that rose up against their masters and fought for the Crown.

George Washington refused to allow blacks to fight in his army and pushed to keep the blacks under tight control.

Eventually, as the war was being lost, the colonies agreed to allow blacks to fight in their army as well and offered them freedom if they fought for their side. This, along with reinforcements from the French helped to turn the tide of the war. Unfortunately for the blacks things got even worse for them after the war was over.

#2 At the time of the war it was deemed the Tobacco Wars. The British had sever restrictions on Tobacco because the king felt it was unhealthy. He opposed Tobacco, and but the Americans were smuggling it into Britain against the law. In fact this was the single largest source of income for the Americans. Many of the American tobacco farmers had massive debts to the British which they refused to pay, even though they were making money.

The King was continuing to crack down on the tobacco smugglers and to take action against the colonists who were not paying their debts.

#3 Only about 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolution. over 60% of the colonists didn't support it. The people who did support it were largely wealthy slave owners. It was revolution instigated by the wealthy in opposition to taxation and the request for repayment of debt and opposition to slavery that the British were mounting.

So it was really a revolution to save wealth that had been acquired by illegal and unethical means, but which they did not want to have taken away.

This is what makes it different from most other revolutions, which are usually of the poor.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
There were most certainly two different sides: the Crown, which kept exploiting the colonies, and the colonies, who were tired of being exploited.
But both sides were British. From some of the statements made in this thread, one might get the impression that, pre-independence, America was under British occupation rather than being a British colony.

Seems like you omitted two important words... "without representation." Taxation without representation.
But the colonies had no less representation in Parliament than any county in Britain—which is to say, very little, as representation was based on class and interest rather than geographical area—so why should the Crown treat the colonies as a special case?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR
Nowadays, Americans are thought of as the absence of ethnicity. It's like we don't exist.

Originally posted by JamesM

Nonsense! You're Americans. I thought that was the whole point, to get away from the petty prejudices of the past and start again. You know, all men being created and all...

Exactly! "American" is a distinct ethnicity, and one that is intended to supercede all other forms of ethnicity. The deal is that these things tend to be invisible because it's what you're used to. You only notice it when you're sensitised by differential treatment in response to your ethnicity.

Originally posted by JAR
Why fight for the existence of an ethnic group that's not recognized? People like me could fight for the existence of white people, but then we'd be called white supremacists.
Because white isn't an ethnicity? The only common cultural feature of "whiteness" is, well, being white, and even that's kind of subjective.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Hegel
Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west, and the border situation was quite hostile at that time. They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians. One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement. While this was quite reprehensible, lets think about why the colonists came to the U.S. anyway. For religious reasons, (i.e. breaking the LAW of England against non-Anglicans, not exactly law-maker materials.) for judicial reasons (e.g. being sent as an indentured servant from the debtor prisons) or being poor or the youngest son of a noble. These were all reasons not to let them into Parliement which was reserved for the Lords in the House of Lords, and for the burger class of the towns in the House of Commons. Almost none of the people that came to the U.S. were inheriting nobles or powerful enough to be in the House of Commons, after all if they had been they would have stayed in England.

So do you have any other info that would be relevent to the debate? And do you think the American Revolution was justified?

Yes and no. A revolt against our lawful King was by definition "un-lawful". But consider the provocation. Imagine how much it would take for great men such as Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson to rebel openly against their King. With so much wealth to lose, their passion for the cause must have been heartfelt indeed! They pledged their "lives, wealth, and sacred honour" to the cause of American independence. They were without doubt traitors to the crown.

Kings are not in the habit of giving up power to the benefit of their people. The Magna Carta was forced upon the King at the point of a sword. Those Lords that forced their King to give up power would have been traitors too had they not held that sword.

The fact that American colonists had just reasons for the revolt is immaterial. Had they lost, our founding fathers would have hung. The history books would have regarded them as traitors and perhaps the Brits would even today celebrate the 4th of July like they do the 5th of November. Winning is all that really matters in war. It's how our entire world history has been shaped. We won. Therefore the American revolution was justified in the one way, that in the end, really matters.

-z

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Because white isn't an ethnicity? The only common cultural feature of "whiteness" is, well, being white, and even that's kind of subjective.

Would you say that 'English' is an ethnicity? [/hijack]

[wollery]

Originally posted by fhios
We rebelled; and we built the first real democracy on Earth. Does someone have a problem with that?
Wow, now there's a spurious claim if ever I saw one! Exactly how was it the first real democracy. Women didn't have the vote, nor did the slaves, or the Indians who were of course the original natives of the land! It was no more a real democracy than ancient Greece, less so in fact because in Greece everyone who was elligible to vote could do so on all state business!
You don't even have a real democracy today, it's a representational republic, and since there are only two parties, both of which are sponsored by big business and special interest groups it can hardly even be described as particularly representational. Not that I'm saying that there are any systems that are any better, just that you should recognise your government for what it is, and your history for what it was, rather than idealising. One of the thing that pisses people off most about America is the oft used claim of Americans that it is the greatest country on Earth. It's certainly the richest and most influential, but that isn't the same thing.

Okay, I'm now bracing myself for the torrent of bile that I'm sure is coming my way! :D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by wollery



Okay, I'm now bracing myself for the torrent of bile that I'm sure is coming my way! :D

:bricks:

Would you settle for torrent of bricks?? Sorry it's the best I could do! :D

:dr: ...please send us one :torrentofbile: smiley.

Thanks!
-z

OBTW: God Bless America! :usa:

:cool:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Yes and no. A revolt against our lawful King was by definition "un-lawful". But consider the provocation. Imagine how much it would take for great men such as Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson to rebel openly against their King. With so much wealth to lose, their passion for the cause must have been heartfelt indeed! They pledged their "lives, wealth, and sacred honour" to the cause of American independence. They were without doubt traitors to the crown.

Kings are not in the habit of giving up power to the benefit of their people. The Magna Carta was forced upon the King at the point of a sword. Those Lords that forced their King to give up power would have been traitors too had they not held that sword.

The fact that American colonists had just reasons for the revolt is immaterial. Had they lost, our founding fathers would have hung. The history books would have regarded them as traitors and perhaps the Brits would even today celebrate the 4th of July like they do the 5th of November. Winning is all that really matters in war. It's how our entire world history has been shaped. We won. Therefore the American revolution was justified in the one way, that in the end, really matters.

-z I couldn't have said it better myself.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ends justify the means? :eek:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by wollery
You don't even have a real democracy today, it's a representational republic, and since there are only two parties, both of which are sponsored by big business and special interest groups it can hardly even be described as particularly representational.

...

One of the thing that pisses people off most about America is the oft used claim of Americans that it is the greatest country on Earth. It's certainly the richest and most influential, but that isn't the same thing. That is fair. I think it is the greatest. Of course I haven't lived anywhere else. But then not many people are dying (literally) to go to other countries.

America is the land of opportunity. Yes, special interests have a lot of influence. Take environmental special interests, they lobby to enact laws every year that make it difficult for businesses to do as they please but protect the environment.

The ACLU using donations from individuals, corporations and others from across the nation use the courts to enforce civil rights.

Unions (some of the most powerful special interests in America) use the dues of their members to lobby on behalf of workers.

My Mother belongs to the AARP. A special interest that works to ensure the rights of senior citizens.

I belong to the NRA. The money I send them represents my voice and will. The NRA works in part on my behalf to protect my 2nd Amendment rights.

I don't know if it truly is the greatest nation on earth. I like it. I was born poor but had opportunity. I am 17 years into a 30 year mortgage. I will own my home someday. I am free to move and find the best schools for my children and enjoy many other freedoms.

To me it IS the greatest nation on earth. If that upsets you then too bad.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Ends justify the means? I just argued for pages with Shanek over this. Yes, there are times when the ends justify the means.

But this is NOT the point that I took from rickzillas post. It was a pragmatic one in which the winners of wars write the rules. That doesn't make it moral or ok. It just is.

As rick so eleoquently points out, had the revolution failed the founders would have swung from the end of a rope. They certainly felt that the ends (self rule) justified the means (revolution).

Edited to turn right into write. Though "right" the rules has a ring to it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Would you say that 'English' is an ethnicity? [/hijack]
<hijack>
Sorry jon, no straightforward answer from me as I'd have to say both yes and no; the "english character" is something that has fascinated sociologists and ethnologists for years, but often it's based on the idea of being English as being middle class, male tea-drinker and cricket fan. So it's hard to come up with one idea of an English ethnicity which encompasses all regional and social variations. I guess to a large extent, ethnicity is only meaningful in contrasting a minority group with the majority host, even though when it comes down to it, we're all "mongrels".

Btw, "Irish" has been accepted as a classification on ethnic monioring forms. Oh joy is me! My ethnicity is recognised at last!
</hijack>

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Ends justify the means? :eek:

You guys trot that out alot. Kneejerk-like.

You forget that sometimes the ends DO justify the means. That's why another trite expression says: "All's fair in love and war".

All that I was trying to say is that without military strength, all the good ideas of history,...the Magna Carta, rule of law, parlimentary representation, bill of rights,....would have never come to pass.

Many people on this forum belittle the soldier...but without him there would be no freedom from which protection you can safely spout off.

If you are at war, then the only thing that has real meaning to you is victory. In war victory is the ultimate justification. It's not the world as I would like it to be,....it's just a recognition of the world that is.

It is the real difference between Founding Father...and treacherous traitor.
-z

BTW: Thanks for the kind word RF ;)

[Ricomise]

I have to post to clarify a little about the history leading up to the American Revolution.

The "French and Indian Wars" began a century before the Napoleanic Wars, and included colonial wars between Britain and France including "King William's War," "Queen Anne's War," "King George's War" as well as what is now commonly referred to as the French and Indian War. These can all really be seen as one conflict punctuated by periods of armistice, and all corresponded with general outbreaks of war in Europe.

The French and Indian War began in 1755 after the British "Ohio Company" had protested to the French in 1754 about building a fort along the Ohio River. (Fort Duquesne, which is in the area that is now Pittsburgh.) The Governor of Virginia sent an expedition (composed of regular and colonial troops), to eject the French from the area after the French ignored the objection.

This fighting started just before the outbreak of the "Seven Years War" in Europe, which was about colonial rivalry and succession in the Hannover area of Germany, if I recollect.

In any event, to say that one side or another "started" the war is to over-simplify a complex geo-political situation.

(By the way, at the time of the American Revolution, my understanding is that the American Colonies enjoyed the lowest taxation rate in the British Empire.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Yes. Britian was at war with France. That means French soldiers are the enemy you dumbass!!

Okay, enlighten me: What war were they already having with France at the time the French and Indian War started?

And why was it not a problem for at least thirty years beforehand?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
But the colonies had no less representation in Parliament than any county in Britain—which is to say, very little, as representation was based on class and interest rather than geographical area—so why should the Crown treat the colonies as a special case?

Oh, very nice... they're justified in treating the colonists like crap because they were treating others like crap, too...

[Malachi151]

Well, thr truth is that at the time they were rebelling for some not so good reasons, they didn't want to pay debts, they didn't want taxation, and they wanted to keep their slaves.

What was at first created was not very democratic, but it became more and more democratic. This I think was not really the intention of the founders, but it happened that anyway.

The real thing that made America work was that it was a large, open, and untapped wildreness.

The first Americans hated government and wanted as little of it as possible. This worked because the land was vast and everyone had the ability to simply get away from eveyrone else and little collective groups were able to form of like minded people. There was no need for everyone to get along because they didn't have to, they could just leave and go somewhere else if they wanted to, and quite often they did.

Because of this government didn't really have a direct impact on free people.

As the open and free natural resources of America have been exploited and become owned this changed the face of the country and there was a push in the public for a more and more democratic system and to get more involved in politics as a means to look out for their own interests, because it was no longer possible to simply get out on your own.

The more and more we have to live and work together as a community the more important democracy and poilics becomes. At the same time advances in communication made it possible for more people to participate in politcs as well.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
Americans in justifying the Revolution usually bring up a wide range of "injuries" done by the British as just cause. But was it justified? They claim that the British soldiers were quartering in American homes. This can be countered by the fact that they were just finished fighting a WAR with the French and Indians to the west, and the border situation was quite hostile at that time. They also claim that the British were overtaxing the colonists. Again, acording to the British, the tax increase was to pay for protection from the French and Indians. One of the final major reasons that the Americans claim that the revolution was justified is that the British refused them representation in Parliement. While this was quite reprehensible, lets think about why the colonists came to the U.S. anyway. For religious reasons, (i.e. breaking the LAW of England against non-Anglicans, not exactly law-maker materials.) for judicial reasons (e.g. being sent as an indentured servant from the debtor prisons) or being poor or the youngest son of a noble. These were all reasons not to let them into Parliement which was reserved for the Lords in the House of Lords, and for the burger class of the towns in the House of Commons. Almost none of the people that came to the U.S. were inheriting nobles or powerful enough to be in the House of Commons, after all if they had been they would have stayed in England.

So do you have any other info that would be relevent to the debate? And do you think the American Revolution was justified?

So, other than your straw-man summary of the reasoning, do you have anything to offer? While a full examination of the bankruptcy of the IMPLIED reasonings behind the revolution might be enlightening, I don't think there's any real reason to discuss this, since you've chosen to build your original article in such an obviously twisted fashion.

Let's ask you, then, what position DO you wish to take, Socrates?

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Well, thr truth is that at the time they were rebelling for some not so good reasons, they didn't want to pay debts, they didn't want taxation, and they wanted to keep their slaves.

Typical Malachi rhetoric.

What you leave out is the telling part.

Now, in fact I happen to have ancestors who were involved. They WERE slaves (of the English, not the colonists) to start with, and arrived here for committing the crimes of not wanting to starve and not wanting to pay starvation taxes to a lord who didn't provide any support back to them because he didn't have to. That all took place in the Borders and Dumfries regions of the UK, and it's all historically recorded.

So, your summary is found deceptive and false.

Try again.

The real thing that made America work was that it was a large, open, and untapped wildreness.

So were other places. What happened there?

The more and more we have to live and work together as a community the more important democracy and poilics becomes. At the same time advances in communication made it possible for more people to participate in politcs as well.
And the more important education becomes, in order to help people see directly through the kind of hate rhetoric that you spout. The only practical difference, politically, between you and Jedi Knight is the way in which you try to take advantage of others' ignorance.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj


So, other than your straw-man summary of the reasoning, do you have anything to offer? While a full examination of the bankruptcy of the IMPLIED reasonings behind the revolution might be enlightening, I don't think there's any real reason to discuss this, since you've chosen to build your original article in such an obviously twisted fashion.

Let's ask you, then, what position DO you wish to take, Socrates?

If you hadn't figured it out I don't think that the revolution was justified. However I AM willing to be pursuaded if you can provide me with actual reasons why it was justified. Thats why I asked if you could think of any other reasons that they rebelled, or justify the reasons given. Oh yes, please stop throwing the "my ancestors were there so I automatically have a better argument than you." My ancestors were there too. So what? They had been living in Virginia since about 1640. That doesn't mean I didn't have to learn everything about it from scratch just like you did. After all memories aren't hereditory.

Here is my opinion. I don't think the Revolution was justified. The British really did try to listen to colonial complaints. For example, at the beginning of the French and Indian War the regular soldiers were impressioning American citizens to fight, confiscating food and supplies, and quartering without compensation in peoples houses. This lasted for about a year or two, during which all the war cost were held by taxes payed by landlords IN BRITAIN. The British government then recanted, released people that were impressed, recompinsate people for the food and supplies, and to compinsate and recompinsate people for the purpose of quartering. Then they went off and won a war against the French for the Americans by 1663, where in the Treaty of Paris, the British got all the teritory east of the Mississippi River. However the British didn't want them to go on it. Why? Because they didn't want to start a war with the indians, and spread into territory they didn't have the troops to hold. A sound military decision, I think so. I assume (this is as far as we have gotten in my U.S. history class so far. Any assistance or clarification of the facts after this point would be welcome.) that the British probably intended a slow exxpantion into the new territories so that they could slowly build up a military force of the nessecary size to hold it. Oh yes, back to the French and Indian War, before the British regulars came the American militias had lost two large battles against the French in the Ohio River vally, one of which was led by the great George Washington himself. Then the English start to acquire problems in the treasury back in England. So what do they think? Lets just leave the dirty rabble alone to fight for themselves? No! They say, "Hmmm. Why don't we actually TAX the Americans for the troops that we are quartering on their soil to protect them. What a brilliant idea." So they go and establish a few reasonable taxes, (one on imports, and one on mail) which were created so that the British Government could afford to kept the soldiers there to protect them from Indian raids, and to help expand into the new British territory. Do the colonist thank the Brits. No! They revolt because all they can see is that the Government is taxing them. Thats what I think started the Revolution. Fire at will!

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel

If you hadn't figured it out I don't think that the revolution was justified. However I AM willing to be pursuaded if you can provide me with actual reasons why it was justified. Thats why I asked if you could think of any other reasons that they rebelled, or justify the reasons given. Oh yes, please stop throwing the "my ancestors were there so I automatically have a better argument than you." My ancestors were there too. So what? They had been living in Virginia since about 1640. That doesn't mean I didn't have to learn everything about it from scratch just like you did. After all memories aren't hereditory.


D**m, an entire case lot of straw men in one little paragraph.

I'd think that someone using the name Hegel might know something about Habermass' writings on rhetorical fallacies.

Your original question was biased toward a given conclusion.

What do you propose, since you conclude that the revolution wasn't justified, anyhow? Should we all bend our knees to the Queen? That's how my ancestors got here in the first place, they wouldn't bend knee to a foreign invader in Dumfries.

Sheesh.

What's your point? Anyone can argue about the legitimacy of any revolution, that's why they're called "revolts".


DOH

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Well, thr truth is that at the time they were rebelling for some not so good reasons, they didn't want to pay debts, they didn't want taxation, and they wanted to keep their slaves.

Keep their slaves? When was the Crown trying to take their slaves from them?

Perhaps you'd like to explain this paragraph in the rough draft of the DoI:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Slavery was one of the grievances against the King. It was only removed because the colonies in the Deep South didn't share that grievance.

[fhios]

Originally posted by shanek


Okay, enlighten me: What war were they already having with France at the time the French and Indian War started?

And why was it not a problem for at least thirty years beforehand?

War is the continuation of policy. France and England both had a policy of hostility toward each other, and helping the colonies was just an opportunity for France to do something about that.

[fhios]

Originally posted by Hegel
What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over.

Well, doesn't the very fact of their willingness to risk their lives prove the utter failure of the British in ruling our people? I won't get this quote right, but in nearly the words of Jefferson "people will suffer injustice when those injustices are sufferable.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fhios
War is the continuation of policy. France and England both had a policy of hostility toward each other,

Huh. Nice dodge. That still doesn't change the fact that the British are hardly justified in quartering troops in private homes by force because of the war...

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj


D**m, an entire case lot of straw men in one little paragraph.

I'd think that someone using the name Hegel might know something about Habermass' writings on rhetorical fallacies.

Your original question was biased toward a given conclusion.

What do you propose, since you conclude that the revolution wasn't justified, anyhow? Should we all bend our knees to the Queen? That's how my ancestors got here in the first place, they wouldn't bend knee to a foreign invader in Dumfries.

Sheesh.

What's your point? Anyone can argue about the legitimacy of any revolution, that's why they're called "revolts".


DOH


I don't suggest that we bow to the Queen now, (although I admit I wouldn't mind it). This is simply a case of history scholasticism. By looking at history it is possible to find out how to act today.

I fully realize that my argument was biased. There was almost no way I could write it anyother way, feeling as strong about the topic as I do. However, like I have said multiple times I AM willing to listen to the otherside. That is why I posted this. If I wanted to keep my opinions all to myself, and wrap myself up in them there would be no reason to post here.

Please leave the claims on the semantics and the way in which I worded my statements out of this and actually answer the question or stop repling. Claiming that all of my arguments are simple and easily broken is remakably easy when you don't make any arguments yourself.

You state that anyone can argue against the legitamacy of a revolution. Of course they can, because by definition it is illeagal. However that really isn't the issue here. The issue really is if the colonist trully had attequate justification for breaking away from England. I claim that they were NOT justified in breaking away. It appears that you disagree. If you don't mind please state your arguments for why the colonists had appropriate justification for starting a revolution.

[fhios]

Originally posted by shanek


Huh. Nice dodge. That still doesn't change the fact that the British are hardly justified in quartering troops in private homes by force because of the war...

I wasn't trying to justify that. I don't think they were justified. The question I was responding to was on the reasons for France's participation in the war.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel


I don't suggest that we bow to the Queen now, (although I admit I wouldn't mind it). This is simply a case of history scholasticism. By looking at history it is possible to find out how to act today.

Really? Advances in technology, science, and ethical and political understanding shoudl bind us to history?

Now, yes, I agree we should study history. Sometimes the right thing happened, sometimes the wrong thing happened, but study of history is hardly the only thing that one must base their decision on.

I fully realize that my argument was biased. There was almost no way I could write it anyother way, feeling as strong about the topic as I do. However, like I have said multiple times I AM willing to listen to the otherside. That is why I posted this. If I wanted to keep my opinions all to myself, and wrap myself up in them there would be no reason to post here.

Please leave the claims on the semantics and the way in which I worded my statements out of this and actually answer the question or stop repling. Claiming that all of my arguments are simple and easily broken is remakably easy when you don't make any arguments yourself.

You state that anyone can argue against the legitamacy of a revolution. Of course they can, because by definition it is illeagal. However that really isn't the issue here. The issue really is if the colonist trully had attequate justification for breaking away from England. I claim that they were NOT justified in breaking away. It appears that you disagree. If you don't mind please state your arguments for why the colonists had appropriate justification for starting a revolution.
Why?

So you can build more straw men? Why should I bother? You've erupted forth here, asking a variety of vague questions that allow you to walk any side you want when they are replied to, with some of the most obvious traits I've ever seen of a troll who wants to further some agenda.

You think we should have all bowed down to King George. Why? You are the one who needs to make the case. George had no call to lord it over the Scots and Irish, or the Welsh, so why the colonists?

How about it?

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
Please leave the claims on the semantics and the way in which I worded my statements out of this and actually answer the question or stop repling. Claiming that all of my arguments are simple and easily broken is remakably easy when you don't make any arguments yourself.


Coming from you that's the veriest heights of hypocracy.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Didn't the French sell that largely because they couldn't defend it, and rather than let it sit there like a ripe apple they figured they could get a few bucks for it?

I mean, if that is true, isn't that kinda the same thing as land through war, except one party saw the writing on the wall and got what they could for it?

I think that was Russia and our purchase of Alaska from them. Sort of sell it to us cheap or we'll take it for free.

[Malachi151]

Now, in fact I happen to have ancestors who were involved. They WERE slaves (of the English, not the colonists) to start with, and arrived here for committing the crimes of not wanting to starve and not wanting to pay starvation taxes to a lord who didn't provide any support back to them because he didn't have to. That all took place in the Borders and Dumfries regions of the UK, and it's all historically recorded.

So you think that its a black and white issue, that one site is right, the other wrong, cut and dry? Bah.

Its just everyone looking out for their own interests.

In virtually every historical situation you can see that everyone is doing something "wrong". People are generally motivated by self interest. The rebellion colonists were looking out for their personal interests, so were the British. Neither side were saints.

On the whole I come down on the side of the American colonists, but nevertheless many were motivated by some dubious concerns.

So were other places. What happened there?

Well, the only other places like this were South America and Africa and Australia, and Australia is equally successful, perhaps more so by some reckonings.

Things didn't work as well there because the invaders were not able to wipe out the natives. If the Europeans had been able to kill all of the Africans, like we killed all of the Indians or like the Australians virtually did with the Aborigines, then I'm sure the conquest of Africa would have been more successful.

The issue is conflict of cultures and ability to control property. In Australia and America the white culture was able to take what it wanted and slaughter everyone else so they were successful. In Africa it wasn't possible to destroy the other people, though they tried, so they were not able to fully exploit the territory for personal gain.

So, theft of the land and genocide of the natives are the first steps to success, and that was most successful in America and Australia and Canada.

Its just robbing a bank. It's more likely to be a success if you just come in and kill everyone and then take what you want. That's how America and Australia were formed, robbery.

Then of course democratic sharing of power among the members of the power elite was another thing that has kept the entire societies more free and less dominated than total monarchy. Its better to be ruled by a sharing of power among the members of the power elite as we are today, then by a single entity.

They did pretty much let people do as they pleased and engage in free trade which was very good and very helpful in building the country. The Spanish and Portuguese in South America didn't do this, they continued to have monarchy and the system of rule by the Empire and Pope over these regions. The biggest problem with South and Central America in terms of success was that Spanish and Portuguese culture was not as sophisticated, it was theocracy and dominated by the Catholic Church, that alone really hurt their system, and they tried to keep everything to themselves and keep tight control on the region.

In America and Australia it was pretty much opened up to let people do what they wanted to do. That only worked though because the land was a vast wilderness. What made America special was that it was a giant open treasure chest and people were allowed to come and grad what they could take, and kill natives in the process and strap blacks down in chains to do their work for them. So it was basically a hay day for whites to come and dominate a land as individual kings. Every man could be his own king, enslave his own people and do his own slaughtering of women and children to take their property and it was all legal. That's how it worked, instead of like under Spain and British rule where the slaughter and enslavement was for the crown, now it was for the individual.

the kind of hate rhetoric that you spout.

Yeah, discussing reality is hate rhetoric :rolleyes: If you call telling it like it is, and exposing the crimes of our fore fathers as hate then so be it. Its not an us vs then issue its an issue of humanity and the truth of human civilization is that its been a very brutal progression. The only harmony has been among men living together in community as equals.

[Malachi151]

Didn't the French sell that largely because they couldn't defend it, and rather than let it sit there like a ripe apple they figured they could get a few bucks for it?

There was a large movement to take the Lousiana terrotory by force from the French. Jefferson opposed this and wanted to buy it instead. This was actually very unpopular at the time. After Jefferson bought the land many considered it a disgrace and a waste of money and said that we should have taken it militarily instead. They considered Jefferson weak for not supporting war.

Then Aaron Burr mounted a plan to take over the region througha military coup and separate it from America to form a new country with himself as King. This was known as the Burr conspiracy, which he worked on for a number of years and tried to get the Kajuns in Lousinana to revolt and help him in the effort because they despised American rule, but the plan failed obviously.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
So you think that its a black and white issue, that one site is right, the other wrong, cut and dry? Bah.

Its just everyone looking out for their own interests.

This is true, but I think that the colonists were justified because their interests did not include subjugating the British, whereas the British interests did include subjugating the colonists.

So, theft of the land and genocide of the natives are the first steps to success,

That didn't have to be the case. It wasn't like the natives had overpopulated the place. There was plenty of room that they could have shared the land with the colonists, and from what I understand of the history of it many of them (both Indians and colonists) would have been happy to do just that.

People just want to live. It's governments that want to conquer.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by fhios


Well, doesn't the very fact of their willingness to risk their lives prove the utter failure of the British in ruling our people? I won't get this quote right, but in nearly the words of Jefferson "people will suffer injustice when those injustices are sufferable.

Exactly, now people need to apply that logic to places like Cuba.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
There was a large movement to take the Lousiana terrotory by force from the French. Jefferson opposed this and wanted to buy it instead. This was actually very unpopular at the time. After Jefferson bought the land many considered it a disgrace and a waste of money and said that we should have taken it militarily instead. They considered Jefferson weak for not supporting war.

Yeah, how little things change. A President finds a peaceful, voluntary solution that benefits both sides and that both sides can agree to, and this is seen as "weak." But a President that wages a war, however unnecessary (Iraq, anyone?), is seen as "strong;" never mind the fact that it's a lot easier to use force than it is to try to reach a peaceful accomodation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Exactly, now people need to apply that logic to places like Cuba.

Sure. The triumph of America over Cuba is evidenced, not by the military or sanctions or politics, but by the simple fact that Cubans are willing to risk their very lives just to get here. And it ain't because of our government or social programs or anything else like that; it's because of our freedom and our opportunities.

[Malachi151]

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It was just rhetoric to get support from the French.

Look at the facts.

#1 The British outlawed slavery in Britain in 1772, 4 years later the Americans revolted.
#2 Many of the founding fathers owned slaves and the revolutionaries were disporportionately slave owners.
#3 Some of the founders were actually slave traders, such and Franklin.
#4 The British immediately offered freedom to blacks that fought against the colonists when the war started, yet the coloniests did not and in fact refused to allow any blacks to fight in the army and actually made conditions more harsh on the slaves during the war.
#5 The colonists finally allowed blacks to fight towards the end when they needed all the help they could get.
#6 The British were the first to outlaw the slave trade.
#7 The Americans didn't outlaw slavery until the 1860s, almost 100 years AFTER the British outlawed it.
#8 Thomas Jefferson owned over 200 slaves in his lifetime and only freed 5, the ones that he fathered. He kept his own children as slaves while he was alive.

If the Americans were so appauled at slavery as to revolt over the issue, then why did they keep for almost 100 years longer than the British? Why was slavery bigger in America than almost any other recorded instance of slavery in the history of the world?

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj
So you can build more straw men? Why should I bother? You've erupted forth here, asking a variety of vague questions that allow you to walk any side you want when they are replied to, with some of the most obvious traits I've ever seen of a troll who wants to further some agenda.

I am NOT trying to ask vague questions, and I am NOT a troll trying to further some agenda. My question is very, very clear. Here it is again! WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLONISTS WERE MORALLY CORRECT (I.E. JUSTIFIED) IN BREAKING AWAY FROM GREAT BRITON? I'm sorry but I really can't see how I could possibly be more clear then that.

You think we should have all bowed down to King George. Why? You are the one who needs to make the case. George had no call to lord it over the Scots and Irish, or the Welsh, so why the colonists?

Why should we have bowed down to King George? BECAUSE HE WAS GIVING US WHAT WE WANTED!!!! We claimed that all we wanted were our rights as Englishmen. O.K. That encludes the right to a strong, stable government that protects the citizens, provides a just court of law, and provices military assitance in the case of defense. However THIS COSTS MONEY. You can't rule a government without money. Therefore we kept trying to claim our "rights as Englishmen" without paying the price, (i.e. taxes). All the government asked, in exchange for giving us the rights mentioned above was a few taxes that THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES TODAY. The Tea Tax, was your typical sales tax. Any goods leaving or entering the country were taxed, the exact same as any sales tax we have today. The Stamp Tax, was a postage tax. We have that today as well (ever heard of postage stamps). Neither of the taxes were unreasonable, it was the Americans that were (and still are) being unreasonable in demanding all of the benifits of a government without being willing to pay for it. The Americans were not justified because the British were giving them their rights in a simple exchange for taxes.

There I have answered your question as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you have any questions about it please ask. Now, will you PLEASE actually answer my question. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLONISTS WERE MORALLY CORRECT (I.E. JUSTIFIED) IN BREAKING AWAY FROM GREAT BRITON?

[corplinx]

I will always root for wealthy pro-business freemasons to overthrow a monarchy's rule.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel


There I have answered your question as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you have any questions about it please ask. Now, will you PLEASE actually answer my question. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLONISTS WERE MORALLY CORRECT (I.E. JUSTIFIED) IN BREAKING AWAY FROM GREAT BRITON?

Your historical "facts" are laughable. Try again later, please.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, very nice... they're justified in treating the colonists like crap because they were treating others like crap, too...

Interesting interpretation, but no, that's not what I said.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You guys trot that out alot. Kneejerk-like.
And "you guys" are who exactly?

You forget that sometimes the ends DO justify the means. That's why another trite expression says: "All's fair in love and war".

All that I was trying to say is that without military strength, all the good ideas of history,...the Magna Carta, rule of law, parlimentary representation, bill of rights,....would have never come to pass.

Many people on this forum belittle the soldier...but without him there would be no freedom from which protection you can safely spout off.

If you are at war, then the only thing that has real meaning to you is victory. In war victory is the ultimate justification. It's not the world as I would like it to be,....it's just a recognition of the world that is.

It is the real difference between Founding Father...and treacherous traitor.
-z

BTW: Thanks for the kind word RF ;)
If you've got anything to say which actually addresses the point I raised, I'll look forward to reading it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
You state that anyone can argue against the legitamacy of a revolution. Of course they can, because by definition it is illeagal. However that really isn't the issue here. The issue really is if the colonist trully had attequate justification for breaking away from England. I claim that they were NOT justified in breaking away. It appears that you disagree. If you don't mind please state your arguments for why the colonists had appropriate justification for starting a revolution.

Please state your justifications for why involuntary slavery, penal colonies, indentured servitude, mass transportations of entire families, excessive taxation, restrictions on freedom and representation atypical even of the repressive Brittish government of the time, and rejection of the repressive religious and economic government are equitable.

After you can demonstrate the equity of the situation, as opposed to simply alledge in direct contradiction to the generally understood historical facts, you're simply blowing wind.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
I will always root for wealthy pro-business freemasons to overthrow a monarchy's rule.

Heh. Well, I can't say it would be my primary motivation, but I can't fault you on this one, Corps.

[c0rbin]

What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over.

That's the kind of question that answers itself.

Improper execution of British Imperialism was a lesson not learned as late as the 1940s.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, very nice... they're justified in treating the colonists like crap because they were treating others like crap, too...

The more I read, yes, the more that seems like what the guy is arguing.

He's all yours. His emergence and trolling in the last few days suggest that a sensible resolution with him is unlikely.

[Hegel]

First I'd like to thank you for finally answering the question.

Originally posted by jj


Please state your justifications for why involuntary slavery, penal colonies, indentured servitude, mass transportations of entire families, excessive taxation, restrictions on freedom and representation atypical even of the repressive Brittish government of the time, and rejection of the repressive religious and economic government are equitable.

After you can demonstrate the equity of the situation, as opposed to simply alledge in direct contradiction to the generally understood historical facts, you're simply blowing wind.

I would claim that your arguments however fall far outside of the range of "fact" and well into the range of interpretation. First of all it was the colonists themselves who were buying the slaves and it was generally speaking the Portugeagse that were getting them in the first place. After Bacon's Rebellion, in 1680, where a large number of indentured servants (who chose to come over here) rebelled against their masters, the practice of indentured servitude fell into disuse, being supplanted with African slavery. If you could please site some sources of this "mass transportation of families" it would be greatly appreciated. I haven't heard of this before, so I am unfamiliar with the curcumstances. The phrase "excesive taxation" would obviously indicate a personal opinion and therefore not be a historical fact. As far as I know these are the Acts passed by Parliment on the Colonies. If you know any more please respond with them.

The Sugar Act of 1764
The Sugar Act rose the duties on refined sugar, and decreased the duties on molasses in an attempt to move the refining of sugar to England, and the making of rum to the Colonies.

The Currency Act of 1764
This Act declared that the Colonies were required to stop production of paper money, and slowly circulate it out in exchange for British coins. This was an attempt to lower the inflation rates which were rampant in the colonies at the time.

The Stamp Act
This was a small tax on all printed items. The idea was to create a very minor tax on a major item, so that individuals wouldn't feel the weight of the tax, but that the government could still gain money.

The Mutiny Act of 1765
This act declared that all smugglers were traitors, by aiding the economic power of foreign enemies, by trading with them.

By 1766 the Stamp Act had been repealed. However in its place was the Declatory Act, which finally place in writing the previous assumtion that the government in London was the final authority over the colonies.

The Townsend Act of 1767
This act created a tax on all tea, paper, lead, and paint. By 1770 all but the tax on tea had been revoked.

The Tea Act
The tax on tea created by the Townsed Act led to an embargo of tea. In the end this led Congress to pass the Tea act stating that only English tea could be imported into the colonies, and that the East India Company was exempt from the tea tax.

So as you can see the actual numbers and amounts of the taxes imposed by the government were minimal at best, and well justified for an overextended empire that has just incurred debts from a major war.

As far as I know there were few restrictions on freedom, not actually imposed by the colonies themselves. The only I know of is the restrictions on moving west into territory that the English didn't have the troops to hold, and the restrictions on smuggling which is illegal anywhere. As for representation, NO ONE had geographical representation in Parliment. Parliment was elected by party lines, and all members of Parliment were to represent the Empire on a whole, and not any set geographical location. So the claim that the colonist didn't have any representation is technically false since they Parliment represented everyone and quite frequently acknowledged colonialist claims, such as the recompensation during and after the French and Indian War, and in repealing the Stamp Act when presented by arguments against it, and resentment for it. I see no historical facts of any unreasonable demands on the Colonists. If you know of any please tell me.

P.S. Please demonstrate my "trolling" and I am quite willing if given actual historical evidence (meaning actual events) from a reliable source to reconsider my position. Are you willing to say the same thing?

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj
The more I read, yes, the more that seems like what the guy is arguing.


That is actually not my argument at all. I believe that they were NOT treating the colonists like crap, that the colonists were over reacting, and I have yet to see any actual events (i.e. not overall views of the scheme of things at the time) that would lead me to think otherwise. If you could show me enough facts, I would be more than will to change my mind.

[Malachi151]

The triumph of America over Cuba is evidenced, not by the military or sanctions or politics, but by the simple fact that Cubans are willing to risk their very lives just to get here.

In the 1920s after Japan had invaded Korea and began destroying the Korean economy and enslaving the people, over 2 million Koreans migrated to Japan because they had more economic oppertunity in Japan. So, the Japanese were the good guys right?

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel


That is actually not my argument at all. I believe that they were NOT treating the colonists like crap, that the colonists were over reacting, and I have yet to see any actual events (i.e. not overall views of the scheme of things at the time) that would lead me to think otherwise. If you could show me enough facts, I would be more than will to change my mind.

Come on, Hegel, the tax regulations for import and export from the colonies are common knowledge, as are the tarrifs that resulted in the starvations in Ireland, etc.

You are certainly right, the colonies were headed down the same road as Scotland, Wales, and later Ireland, but they were far enough away to do something about it.

London merchants didn't pay those tarriffs, even when they landed in the new world, the BUYER had to pay them on both the front and back ends.

Look, your position is historically ridiculous and we all know it, including you. Why are you trolling here?

Once again, you seem to indicate that what George did to the American colonies was ok because he also did it to all the other colonies.

That is obvious hogwash.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj


Come on, Hegel, the tax regulations for import and export from the colonies are common knowledge, as are the tarrifs that resulted in the starvations in Ireland, etc.

You are certainly right, the colonies were headed down the same road as Scotland, Wales, and later Ireland, but they were far enough away to do something about it.

London merchants didn't pay those tarriffs, even when they landed in the new world, the BUYER had to pay them on both the front and back ends.

Look, your position is historically ridiculous and we all know it, including you. Why are you trolling here?

Once again, you seem to indicate that what George did to the American colonies was ok because he also did it to all the other colonies.

That is obvious hogwash.

I'm sorry but I am NOT trolling. This is my actual belief. I think that the taxes were perfectally reasonable. Yes the buyer had to pay it. That is how sales taxes are everywhere. If a british merchant wanted to buy molasses after the sugar act, it would be cheaper when shipped over seas, and when buy refined sugar would be more expensive. This lowers the trade in refined sugar, but increases it in molasses (and through molasses rum a product primarily produced by the COLONIES). I don't think that the American colonies were going anywhere near what the British did to Ireland. With the Irish the British directly came in and would take goods from Irish families. In America, they simply regulated trade using taxes, which meant that people could still do what they wanted it just cost more, (or less as with molasses and the Sugar Act).

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
I'm sorry but I am NOT trolling. This is my actual belief. I think that the taxes were perfectally reasonable.

Your belief is irrelevant. The facts of the matter are, I think, clear, and your revisionist interpretation is simply a trolling manouever.
:s2:
:coal:

[Hegel]

Your side has the Declaration of Independence. Here is my rebuttal. Take it with a grain of wisdom, just like you should while reading the Declaration. Read and see it from the other point of view. The same FACTS mind you, just worded differently.



His Majesty the esteemed George the III of England has rightfully removed privileges from the Colonists which they have shown time and time again that would use to further irresponsible works, even treasonous works against their rightful rulers and representatives in the body of the Parliament of all the British Empire, which has repetitively relinquished to the demands of the Colonists when the grievances brought before them have indeed been shown unjust.

His Majesty has removed the rights of the Colonists to hold their own regional governments, because they were acting irresponsibly, and failing in their duty to root out and destroy traitors to the English government of which they themselves were a part.

The regional governments have failed to act in accordance with the directives of the English government and have at times even worked against the British parliament, and therefore against the common good of the Empire on a whole, and against British citizens everywhere.

He has refused to grant leave to enter into the newly gained territory, until it has become safe for British citizens, and until he had enough well trained soldiers to hold the Native population at bay.

He has sent armies for the purpose of quelling treason, which has become common in the colonies, and through this purpose to prevent conflict between the colonies and to protect them from outside invaders in the form of the Native population, which so plagued them before His Majesty granted leave of his protection.

He has established martial law in those colonies which, against the greater good of the Empire, and the Colonies themselves have acted treasonously, attacking and harming British soldiers sent to protect them from harm and to act in the defense of justice, destroying British goods sent for the betterment of the colonies, and for acting in other manners most unseemly of a British citizen.

He has required that they summit themselves to the jurisdiction of Parliament which acts for all of the Empire to improve the Economies and wealth of all the British Empire, and to capitalize on the strengths of all parts of the Empire.

He has required that the Citizens of the Colonies quarter the troops sent to them for the purpose of the Common Defense of British Citizens, and the establishment of law and order, which has obviously been lacking in the colonies under the lax rule of their regional governments.

He has supported Parliament in its works for the greater good of the Empire, and in the use of the Natural resources of the Colonies, and the Manufacturing potential in the land of England to create a form of trade both beneficial and profitable to both sides.

He has allowed Parliament to tax the British citizens and finally has made them pay for the gifts of Government, namely those of Protection from outer enemies, and the Establishment of Tranquility and Peace within their jurisdiction.

He has granted to the Quebecois, who are now British citizens, land and opportunities, to those who were once our enemies showing the same kindness, and graciousness that he and his Parliament have demonstrated time and time again to the grievances laid by the Colonies when they have indeed been deemed unjust and has repealed them duly.

He is transporting foreign mercenaries here in order to provide for the Common Defense, and finally allow greater expansion into the Territories gained in Paris.

He has captured smugglers who were acting in a treasonous manner by aiding the Power of foreign governments whose sole purpose is to wreak havoc and death on the Empire of Britain. He tried these smugglers found them rightly guilty of treason and has sentenced them to serve in the defense of the Empire which they have wrongly wounded with their treasonous acts.

He has often patiently listened to the Complaints that the Colonies spew forth, and has frequently addressed their grievances and has mended them, except when they have been deemed necessary to the Good of the Empire, or to the Protection of British Citizens and their families.

He has thus demonstrated himself to be a pure and honest leader who has shown that he has the Good of All the Empire including her Colonies in the Americas in her heart, and that he and his Parliament work selflessly for the good of all British citizens.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hegel
Your side has the Declaration of Independence. Here is my rebuttal.

Straw man, extraction from context, appeal to irrelevant authority,...

Man oh man, Habermass is turning over in his sepulchre.

Whaaaatever......

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj


Straw man, extraction from context, appeal to irrelevant authority,...




I'm sorry if I have mistaken what you have said. I felt that it was quite clear that you felt that the American Revolution was justified, for the reasons that were presented in the Declaration of Independence. If this is wrong, then please inform me what IS your opinion.

Secondly I have not taken anything out of its context. All of the events demonstrated in the previous document are as true as any of the events presented in the Declaration. All this document does is show it from an Imperialist/Loyalist perspective, which I am a member of. It shows EXACTLY why I feel that the greviences that the colonies were bringing up were irrelevant, irresponsible, and at times down right puerile.

Finally I'm not bringing in ANY irrelevant authorities. I wrote the document myself, and it directly addresses, and rebuttles the greviences lain in the Declaration of Independence.

[Hegel]

Originally posted by jj

Look, your position is historically ridiculous and we all know it, including you. Why are you trolling here?


My position is NOT historically rediculous. At least 15% of the colonists picked up and moved to Canada during the revolution, because they still felt Loyalty to the King and Parliament. I simply continue to hold their point of view, namely that the British government had not done anything severe enough to justify a revolution. The Colonists were acting like children. They wanted all of their greviences solved, and they were completely unwilling to compromise. Who is in the wrong, the British government that was trying to work with the Colonies, or the Americans who were stubbornly refusing to budge on ANY of their issues.


P.S.
Please when you respond to this and other posts, please do not make another comment about "historical facts" that come in the form of:
"It is a historical FACT that the British treated the Colonists like crap."
That is quite obviously NOT a fact. That is an opinion. A fact would be:
"In 1763 the British Government passes the sugar act, raising the duties on refined sugar, and lowering them on molasses."
That actually happened. Whether or not the British government abused the Colonists or not is a matter of Opinion, and one that we are arguing here.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think the American revolution was justified. The Americans at the time had a more progressive ideology, wanted to escape the rule of a monarchy, wanted a higher degree of freedom and more democracy. The American's weren't just concerned with taxation but taxation without representation..

And what was the result? We got a democracy up and going almost two centuries before Britain and other European nations.

Sure the US did some things in a hypocritical manner, committed some things like slavery (nevermind that Europe had peasants, a group not much higher then a slave) and our genocide against the Indians was somewhat unforgivable (nevermind that Europe and England played a big role in genocides as well.)

But compared to England I'd say the Founding Father's were a much better sort of ruler and their ideas were truly admirable.

America showed the world that a democracy could work. That a nation did not need a monarchy to make it. I think such an act was of great importance for the rest of the world, which may have otherwise not been as confident in overthrowing and displacing the power of monarchy.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
America showed the world that a democracy could work.

Provided you aint a ni**er or an injun.

[Grammatron]

Yea Jon_in_london, because USA has a monopoly on Racism and it obviously never got any better. :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Provided you aint a ni**er or an injun.

Or Irish or Welsh or Scots....

Pot, saucepan, black.

[DialecticMaterialist]

America at least provided a basis for correcting its problems and establishing a government for its people. For this reason it has a more diverse crowd then England today, which still, correct me if I'm wrong; does have a monarchy and a state church.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by jj


Or Irish or Welsh or Scots....

Pot, saucepan, black.

Im not the one claiming my country was a democracy much earlier than yours. You are the pot. Not me.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
America showed the world that a democracy could work. That a nation did not need a monarchy to make it.
Could you support this please?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
America at least provided a basis for correcting its problems and establishing a government for its people. For this reason it has a more diverse crowd then England today, which still, correct me if I'm wrong; does have a monarchy and a state church.
Could you expand a little on the connection between Britain's monarchy and England's state church in their current forms and diversity and representative government please? :confused:

[jj]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Im not the one claiming my country was a democracy much earlier than yours. You are the pot. Not me.



And I wasn't the one making the claim, either, so don't tell me I was.

I'm simply pointing out your hypocritical condemnation of the USA.

Facts are a pain, aren't they, Jon?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Could you support this please?


Could you show me an earlier Western democracy at this time? (Not something in Greece and Rome btw.)


Could you expand a little on the connection between Britain's monarchy and England's state church in their current forms and diversity and representative government please? :confused:

Sure, it shows that the Founding Father's wanted to get this sort of yoke of their backs, and it worked. I think a lot of the problem here is many anti-americans are portraying the issue as a purely economic one, not an ideological one. But that fails to explain a lot, especially why many rich people did not join the American revolution. And why many middle class people, like Benjamin Franklin, were leading advocates.

Thomas Paine was also a leading figure and hardly a big time land owner or slave owner. I don't find thecorrelation between most of the leaders being wealthy as evidence of the cause being economic: mainly because the leader's of any revolutionary movement were rich back then.

This is because they were the only one's that were educated.

And who had a better, more democratic/free ideology at the time? The US.

Britain's system back then was still far more closed, far less pluralistic and far less rational then the American.

Basically Britain viewed the US as a colony to be exploited by its King, and the US did not view itself that way.

Also the Boston Tea Party was not as disorganized as some implied:

http://www.multied.com/revolt/Tea.html

To my knowledge there is no evidence of rioting in general.

To quote PBS:

About 50 members of the political organization, The Sons of Liberty, boarded 3 ships in Boston Harbor. Some were dressed, not very convincingly, as Mohawk Indians. In a very orderly and quiet fashion, they plunked [sterling]9,659 worth of Darjeeling into the sea.



http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/bostonteaparty-edenton.html

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, the history of my family in this area shows otherwise. They settled west of the Catawba river. East of the Catawba were the friendly Catawba, on the west the more vicious Cherokee. Those two tribes fought like cats and dogs with each other. But oddly enough, they always fought around the white settlers. Their relationship with them, if not friendly, was at least indifferent.

Until the French and Indian war, that is. That changed everything...

So we went from SOME Indian tribes being hostile to MOST of them being hostile.

Shanek,
You tried this before on the Civil War, you think by showing a few atypical examples that you "prove" your point.
By showing there were some friendly Indians like the ones in PA you go to make the absurd assertion that there was baisacally no conflict before the 1755-1763 war.

The famous French and Indian War was the last of four. Fighting with the French had started in the late 17th century over what else land...

Actually the British were trying to stop conflict with the Indians by setting up the Proclimation Line of 1763 which tried to keep the colonists from going over the Appalachians and taking Indian land.
Now the Brits did not do this for love of the Indian, rather they were sick of sending troops to fight the colonist's conflicts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
By showing there were some friendly Indians like the ones in PA

NC, actually, although in PA, too. From what I understand it was pretty much the same everywhere.

you go to make the absurd assertion that there was baisacally no conflict before the 1755-1763 war.

I never said that. There were conflicts, just nothing like what followed later.

The famous French and Indian War was the last of four.

But was separated from all the others by decades, and the others paled in intensity. The French and Indian War pretty much ruined any hopes of real peace between the colonists and the Indian tribes, something that was still obtainable before.

[Hegel]

Shanek previously, you mentioned that the French and American War was started by the British. This is plainly NOT true. The conflict started when a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Virginia militia, by the name of George Washington, created Fort Nessecity in about the same place as where Pittsburg is now. However only about a mile distant was the French fort, Fort Duquesne. This close proximity of military institutions was bound to lead to conflict, and it did when the French assulted Fort Nessecity, and George Washington surrendered after a third of his men had been slaughtered, and returned to Virginia in defeat. The next year, another group of Colonial militia men, this time lead by General Brannock, tried to assult Fort Duquesne, and failed when he ran into an ambush, and he and his men were slaughtered. It wasn't until the year latter in 1756 that British regulars became more than nominally involved in the conflict. So I suppose you could claim that the French and Indian War was started by the British, because after all the Colonists were British citizens, but for some reason I don't think that was what you meant...

Also the relationship between the Colonists and the Natives had been strained in most places since the foundations of the Colonies, and the Colonists stole from the Natives for their survival. Raids back and forth were common place before and after the French and Indian War in most places, with only a very few exceptions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hegel
Shanek previously, you mentioned that the French and American War was started by the British. This is plainly NOT true. The conflict started when a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Virginia militia, by the name of George Washington, created Fort Nessecity in about the same place as where Pittsburg is now. However only about a mile distant was the French fort, Fort Duquesne. This close proximity of military institutions was bound to lead to conflict, and it did when the French assulted Fort Nessecity,

After Washington, acting on orders, set up camp in Great Meadows and launched a preemptive strike on Fort Duquesne.

It wasn't until the year latter in 1756 that British regulars became more than nominally involved in the conflict. So I suppose you could claim that the French and Indian War was started by the British, because after all the Colonists were British citizens,

Not only that, but Washington was under orders from Virginia's Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie, and at the time all Governors and Lt. Governors acted under orders from the Crown. That was a big issue in the fight for independence. In fact, Benjamin Franklin's relationship with his son William was quite strained because of his position as Governor of New Jersey.

[Mike B.]

Shanek,
A couple points...

The last French and Indian War was only bigger than the others because Pitt decided to make North America a priority.

It is simply false to say the last French and Indian War was seperated by decades from the others in that "King George's War" ended in the late 1740s and the last French and Indian War started in 1755.

The royal governers and the Crown actually acted as a brake on the colonies expanding into Indian land. The Proclamation of 1763 was an attempt to keep the colonists east of the mountains in order to forstall conflict with the Indians, that the Brits would have to send soldiers to fight.

Remember too Bacon's Rebellion in VA in the 17th century. One of Bacon's main complaints was that the royal governor Berkley wasn't harsh enough against the Indians and wasn't pushing them off the land as fast as Bacon thought they should.

People wanted to expand and get that land, that the Brits were not allowing them, especially by 1763. This is of course one of the reasons for the Revolution.

You seem to be saying that the reason for Indian/colonialist conflict was "big government" in the form of Royal officials interfering.

Why do I get the feeling that you again are twisting historical facts to fit your one true religion that government is evil?