• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canada Day!

The Crown never wronged the colonies, they just wanted the colonies to help pay off a war they were the main beneficiaries of. The colonies would have lost if they were no propped up by France as they suffered from poor administration. The UK government actually makes a profit off the royal family.

That's not necessarily true. The Crown had been unsympathetic and abusive to the colonies. I'd review the "Intolerable Acts" and abuses of the Crown (especially in the Province of Massachusetts). The colonies wouldn't have won without the French, and the French supported the colonies because Britain was a common enemy. When the signatories of the Declaration of Independence did so they understood their position as a relatively small population with less wealth and military might than the British Empire. Their loss would have meant certain death for treason in England. I highly doubt these heroes would have been so brave as to declare independence amid certain death for themselves and their estates at the hands of a tyrant if the Crown was being jolly and governing with fairness over the colonies.
 
They put several internal taxes upon us which would ordinarily only be applied to the actual British Isles. When we complained about this, Parlaiment passed the Coercive Acts, which would come to be known as the Intolerable Acts in the thirteen North American colonies. They even cut a giant section away from a few of the New England colonies and gave them to Quebec, just to spite us. That sounds pretty wrong to me.

Also, we fed and housed the soldiers fighting for us in that war, in addition to devoting several militias to the war effort as well. It's not like we hadn't already paid for the war when they started charging us for the war.

Someone had to pay the war debt, it might as well have been the people who benefited the most from the war.
 
They gained land and trading opportunities.

They gained a few slightly less "Frenchy" neighbors. Sure, England definitely owned everything east of the Mississippi after the Seven Years' War, but we weren't actually allowed past the Appalachian Mountains. There were a number of colonies who gained more meaningfu (admittedly, many colonists failed to give the appropriate number of damns about that law, and settled there anyway). England had all of New France and Florida to tax, as well as some additional territory in India and Africa - if I'm not mistaken. They could have placed any number of taxes on these locations without violating the English Bill of Rights, given that much of the populations of these areas were not English citizens. Instead, they decided to stack a couple of unlawful taxes onto the thirteen English colonies that had helped secure these territories for Queen and Country. We were even ordered to foot the bill for the failings of the East India Company, for some ****ing reason.

Remember, this was a war that spanned four continents. We may have been in an important theatre of the war, but we were quite far from the main stage of it.
 
They gained a few slightly less "Frenchy" neighbors. Sure, England definitely owned everything east of the Mississippi after the Seven Years' War, but we weren't actually allowed past the Appalachian Mountains. There were a number of colonies who gained more meaningfu (admittedly, many colonists failed to give the appropriate number of damns about that law, and settled there anyway). England had all of New France and Florida to tax, as well as some additional territory in India and Africa - if I'm not mistaken. They could have placed any number of taxes on these locations without violating the English Bill of Rights, given that much of the populations of these areas were not English citizens. Instead, they decided to stack a couple of unlawful taxes onto the thirteen English colonies that had helped secure these territories for Queen and Country. We were even ordered to foot the bill for the failings of the East India Company, for some ****ing reason.

Remember, this was a war that spanned four continents. We may have been in an important theatre of the war, but we were quite far from the main stage of it.

Regarding India and Africa, tax who exactly? The reason the Thirteen colonies were taxed is that they were established within the British empire, had a postulation, that could be taxed effectively, and benefited from the war.
 
Regarding India and Africa, tax who exactly? The reason the Thirteen colonies were taxed is that they were established within the British empire, had a postulation, that could be taxed effectively, and benefited from the war.

...It was at that moment, that Jesse knew: he had ****ed up.

Regardless of the corner I just violently plowed myself into with the force of a freight train, we were still being taxed unlawfully for a war that had spanned four continents, despite the fact that we had pulled our own weight with our part of it. Regardless of whether or not we were the most expedient route for paying off the war debt, Parlaiment was out of bounds in foisting these taxes upon us without our consent.

Worst of all, some of these taxes were actually meant to undercut the American economy in favor of other colonies. The Tea Act existed solely to prop up the East India Company at the expense of a number of American tea merchants who had the misfortune of not being the favored pets of Parlaiment.
 
...It was at that moment, that Jesse knew: he had ****ed up.

Regardless of the corner I just violently plowed myself into with the force of a freight train, we were still being taxed unlawfully for a war that had spanned four continents, despite the fact that we had pulled our own weight with our part of it. Regardless of whether or not we were the most expedient route for paying off the war debt, Parlaiment was out of bounds in foisting these taxes upon us without our consent.

Worst of all, some of these taxes were actually meant to undercut the American economy in favor of other colonies. The Tea Act existed solely to prop up the East India Company at the expense of a number of American tea merchants who had the misfortune of not being the favored pets of Parlaiment.

The thirteen colonies had the same representation as most other British subjects, at least the colonies had a voice, similar to what the US does today for representation of the territories and DC.
 
The thirteen colonies had the same representation as most other British subjects, at least the colonies had a voice, similar to what the US does today for representation of the territories and DC.

How many representatives did we have in Parlaiment again?
 
One, that could not vote. Which is one more than the majority of British subjects got.

Oh, and I am fully aware that the vast majority of British subjects could not possibly be respresented. Only landowners who would be subject to taxation would have any opportunity to vote on taxation, which was honestly quite fair, until numerous British subjects who owned land were subjected to taxation without a vote.
 
Please do inform me of the American representatives who cannot actually represent us in a legislative body, I'm ever so curious what these people are.

The representatives of DC and the territories.
 
The representatives of DC and the territories.

The representative for D.C. can vote in any committee they are a member of (there have been a few attempts to get a full vote over the centuries, and I certainly argue that they deserve full representation) and we don't tax the people in our territories.
 
DC has no senator because as a federal district it receives much of its funding and is subsidized by the gov. It was meant to be a city that housed the federal government under federal control to prevent a state from having control or too much influence in federal matters. DC should never become a state. They have electoral votes for president and a non voting house rep. If people are really concerned about having senators they can move 5 miles out to Maryland or Virginia. DC was created by land ceceeded from Maryland to be a federal district for the purpose of Congress overseeing the capital of the federal US government. If DC is to have Senate representation the only just thing to do would be to give the land back to Maryland that it donated to be the Federal capital and have its residents be represented as citizens of Maryland. The rest of the 49 states can dump billions in funding to the state of Maryland to run the city as it sees fit (see any problems with this?) I don't understand why its so hard though to recognize the Crowns abuses of the colonies. They met our concerns and basically mocked them, not only that they did the opposite and spited the colonies. As mentioned, the signers of the Declaration would have been put to death by a tyrannical king had they failed.

May King George be eternally shamed in hell knowing his rebellious colonies grew to become the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth overpowering Britain many times over :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
DC has no senator because as a federal district it receives much of its funding and is subsidized by the gov. It was meant to be a city that housed the federal government under federal control to prevent a state from having control or too much influence in federal matters. DC should never become a state. They have electoral votes for president and a non voting house rep. If people are really concerned about having senators they can move 5 miles out to Maryland or Virginia. DC was created by land ceceeded from Maryland to be a federal district for the purpose of Congress overseeing the capital of the federal US government. If DC is to have Senate representation the only just thing to do would be to give the land back to Maryland that it donated to be the Federal capital and have its residents be represented as citizens of Maryland. The rest of the 49 states can dump billions in funding to the state of Maryland to run the city as it sees fit (see any problems with this?) I don't understand why its so hard though to recognize the Crowns abuses of the colonies. They met our concerns and basically mocked them, not only that they did the opposite and spited the colonies. As mentioned, the signers of the Declaration would have been put to death by a tyrannical king had they failed.

May King George be eternally shamed in hell knowing his rebellious colonies grew to become the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth overpowering Britain many times over :mrgreen:

That's why we fought so hard to keep you.

That the French obtained temporary naval superiourity for enough time to allow the French lead and reinforced American forces to win is very irritating.

That you have developed into the world's greatest nation, if slightly mad, is wonderful.
 
Yes, but Canada was not able to pass any revision to it without Parliament's approval.

But it was in effect a rubber stamp, I think you underestimate the power of tradition in the Westminster system.
 
Back
Top Bottom