• 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!

A reflexion upon American history

calamity said:
Had the Brits not over-taxed those fellas, we most certainly never would have revolted. But, there was a French war to pay for. So, Britain got greedy.
Click to expand...

It was not even about "over-taxation" at all. The Colonists had no objections to paying taxes. The real issue was the resentment of the failure to recognize their Rights of Englishmen.

Only simpletons and those with only a Junior High level of history think it was about taxes themselves.

jet57 said:
I often think that if King George had allowed Hamilton et al to participate in the colonial government, we might never have had a revolution and would now be a larger country merged with Canada.
Click to expand...

And that is what the war was really about. And it is obvious when the "1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance" is examined. It is sad that this earlier declaration has been almost completely ignored. In it, it restated that the Colonists were loyal to England and the Crown, and it was their duty to serve the King. However, as Englishmen they also had rights under the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and other legal documents to certain rights in exchange, including the Right to Petition, the Right of Representation, and the Right of Due Process.

It was only the ignoring of this Petition and later increasingly harsher measured (including the abolishment of all Colonial Councils) that pushed them into action. And ultimately turning the Second Continental Congress 8 years later from sending yet another Petition attempting to address the ignoring of these rights into an outright Declaration of Independence.

At least after the Colonies revolted Great Britain got wise and started to grant their colonies greater degrees of self-governance. If they had done that in 1768 or even 1775, the Colonies would likely still be part of the Commonwealth to this day.
 
Oozlefinch said:
It was not even about "over-taxation" at all. The Colonists had no objections to paying taxes. The real issue was the resentment of the failure to recognize their Rights of Englishmen.

Only simpletons and those with only a Junior High level of history think it was about taxes themselves.
Click to expand...
My money is still on following the money. It's always about the money.


And that is what the war was really about. And it is obvious when the "1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance" is examined. It is sad that this earlier declaration has been almost completely ignored. In it, it restated that the Colonists were loyal to England and the Crown, and it was their duty to serve the King. However, as Englishmen they also had rights under the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and other legal documents to certain rights in exchange, including the Right to Petition, the Right of Representation, and the Right of Due Process.

It was only the ignoring of this Petition and later increasingly harsher measured (including the abolishment of all Colonial Councils) that pushed them into action. And ultimately turning the Second Continental Congress 8 years later from sending yet another Petition attempting to address the ignoring of these rights into an outright Declaration of Independence.

At least after the Colonies revolted Great Britain got wise and started to grant their colonies greater degrees of self-governance. If they had done that in 1768 or even 1775, the Colonies would likely still be part of the Commonwealth to this day.
Click to expand...

IMO, the people getting rich here probably could not care less about that. For them the issue was keeping their wealth and not having to fork it over to the British Trading monopolies like the Virginia Trading Company.
 
calamity said:
My money is still on following the money. It's always about the money.

IMO, the people getting rich here probably could not care less about that. For them the issue was keeping their wealth and not having to fork it over to the British Trading monopolies like the Virginia Trading Company.
Click to expand...

And this is why you keep failing.

We are trying to discuss history, not the Marxian Philosophy.

I always find it funny that the Leftists and Marxists seem to care about money over anything else. It is even more important to them than rights. Which is what the Revolution was ultimately all about.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And this is why you keep failing.

We are trying to discuss history, not the Marxian Philosophy.

I always find it funny that the Leftists and Marxists seem to care about money over anything else. It is even more important to them than rights. Which is what the Revolution was ultimately all about.
Click to expand...

"Leftists, Marxist..." What?

Fact is that it was about the money. The first act of discord was a trade embargo imposed on the colonies by Britain, which banned the colonies from trading with other countries. This led to an uprising in the upper colonies in the late 1600's. The continued trade control, like imposing severe taxes on wool, hats and molasses in 1733, really got that ball really rolling. After that, the cry was "taxation without representation," and that eventually led to the revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
 
calamity said:
Fact is that it was about the money. The first act of discord was a trade embargo imposed on the colonies by Britain, which banned the colonies from trading with other countries. This led to an uprising in the upper colonies in the late 1600's.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Navigation Act of 1651, passed by Oliver Cromwell.

Of course, at that time the Colonies were a lot smaller than they were 100 years later. They were also in no way self-sufficient. Being across an ocean, they were dependent upon imports in a way that England was not.

And it was not something that was done for money, it was done to stop trade with Holland. And the Commonwealth was at war with Holland at the time.

So once again, you try to make some kind of point, but fail to understand the time period involved.

That was not done to get money from the colonies, but to prevent trade with an enemy. If it was about money, they would have taxed the trade. This prohibited trade.

Not unlike say the US in 1942 prohibiting Puerto Rico from trading with Nazi Germany.

Nice fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom