Revolutionary War

[God Conquers]

You mean the Second British Civil War?

Unjust.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 12 2005, 11:18 AM']
I started this thread hoping someone could give me a suitable answer to the question, apparently I've got on some peoples nerves. I apologize if I offended you Socrates, but I like to have reasons about why I believe what I do. [/quote]
I think the central issue is whether a country has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of a colonial empire governed an overseas country, or whether it has a right to be self-governed.

I think local autonomy and self-governence is more in line with principles of subsidiarity.

And the fact that the American government has fallen away from many of its early ideals is irrelevant to the rightness of the original cause. Both U.S. and British governments are now much more tyrannical than they were in the 18th century.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 15 2005, 05:55 PM'] I think the central issue is whether a country has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of a colonial empire governed an overseas country, or whether it has a right to be self-governed.

I think local autonomy and self-governence is more in line with principles of subsidiarity.

And the fact that the American government has fallen away from many of its early ideals is irrelevant to the rightness of the original cause. Both U.S. and British governments are now much more tyrannical than they were in the 18th century. [/quote]
[quote]I think the central issue is whether a country has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of a colonial empire governed an overseas country, or whether it has a right to be self-governed.[/quote]

You've already loaded your statement, somthing is not a country until it is independent so the statement should read. " whether a dependency has a moral requirement to remain a subordinate part of an empire ( Colonial or not is meaningless colonies actually owe more to there mother country not less) who's government is overseas, or whether it has a right to be self governed. "

To this I ask what does being overseas have to do with anything? Is Hawaii less beholding to the US than Virgina is? what defines a dependency or in your words " country" could harris county become it's own couontry and just abandon Texas how about the stretch around the entire interior Gulf coast with simular economic interest say 200 miles inland, what makes a dependency a " country"?



[quote]I think local autonomy and self-governence is more in line with principles of subsidiarity.[/quote]

Well I agree this is why I am a fuedalist, butthat seems quite irrelevent here as "local" autonomy was not really desired by the founders.


[quote]And the fact that the American government has fallen away from many of its early ideals is irrelevant to the rightness of the original cause.[/quote] I also agree with you here excepting of course that the original ideas where evil.

[quote]
Both U.S. and British governments are now much more tyrannical than they were in the 18th century.[/quote]

Totall agree wityh you here with out provision.

[God Conquers]

[quote]They had representatives in Parliament. The American colonies did not.[/quote]

This is 100% not true.

Every American Colony had a representative in parliament.

Every British Colony did in fact.

Bermuda, Canada, and Ireland didn't see anything wrong with their representation.

The American colonies had representatives named for them, MPs from other parts of England who represented their interests in parliament and voiced their grievances. They chose, unlike Canadians and Australians, to have a violent revolution instead of steadily gaining the confidence of the crown and petitioning for self government.

[Don John of Austria]

bump for socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 15 2005, 09:24 PM']
This is 100% not true.

Every American Colony had a representative in parliament.

Every British Colony did in fact.

Bermuda, Canada, and Ireland didn't see anything wrong with their representation.

The American colonies had representatives named for them, MPs from other parts of England who represented their interests in parliament and voiced their grievances. They chose, unlike Canadians and Australians, to have a violent revolution instead of steadily gaining the confidence of the crown and petitioning for self government. [/quote]
"No taxation without representation" was the American protest.

Having "respresentatives" named for them by England is not the same as having representatives from America who would actually represent the American people.

And, of course, many Irishmen would dispute the fact that they were/are totally fine with English rule. (No need to go into that!)

The fact is Americans were beginning to see their own interests as different from that of England's. They wanted to rule themselves rather than be dominated by the interests of a nation across the Atlantic Ocean. (And this distance actually meant a lot in the 18th Century, when sea voyages were long and hazardous!)

Why people are arguing about something that was settled 240 years ago is beyond me. England has recognized America as an independent nation since the Treaty of Paris. Does anyone in America want to go back to being under British rule? Then they can move to England! End of story!

Personally, I'm proud to be American! If I wanted to be Canadian instead, I'd move to Canada. I'm not going to rant against the Canadians, English or anyone else. We may not agree on everything, but we can live in peace.

[God Conquers]

The argument is whether or not the Second British Civil War was a just one. You argue that it was. Others are arguing that it was not. Does it mean those Americans arguing the point want to go back under British rule? No. Does it mean I do? No. It's an argument.

"No taxation without Representation" was loaded propaganda. The truth was that they DID have representatives, even if they were not Americans.

Was this slogan fair? No way.

1) They had representatives, as stated earlier.

2) Everyone in England was taxed, whether they had representation or not, whether they had the vote or not.

3) The tax burden on Americans was almost 10 times less than on normal Englishmen. So, extra taxes and customs were placed on goods coming into America, most notably on stamps and on tea.

Why were the British taxed so heavily? The Americans were incurring onto French and Indian land past the Appalachian mountains and, not surprisingly, being attacked there because of it. Those Americans living outside of their borders demand protection, and the British Crown builds forts and maintains armies to protect them. Who paid for this? The British people. When some of this cash was demanded from the Americans in the aforementioned taxes and customs, they revolted, not wanted to pay for their own protection.

This is why the participants of the Boston Tea Party were dressed as Native peoples.

4) The Quebec Act. The British Crown allows the practice of Catholicism and limited (Catholic) self governance north of the "border" (yay!)

Puritans are pissed.

5) Ah the Tea... and the Boston Tea Party.

A slight tax is placed on Tea, an incredibly popular item, not readily grown in the colonies.

This tax alters the price of tea for the normal consumer.

This hurts tea merchants and prompts tea smuggling.

Tea smugglers make MASSIVE profits at this time and enjoy these profits and some become powerful (and rich) people. But how to keep their business going indefinately?

A) Keep the British pissed off and taxing tea.

B) Bust up those Loyalist Tea Mechant's product.

C) Join and help a Revolution, become legitimate and sole merchants of tea in new country.

No surprise here... #1 tea smuggler in late 18th Century American Colonies..... JOHN ADAMS!

So we see that the real reasons for the war were not so noble. And not very just at all.

[philothea]

Ah, history is so often ugly. Kind of like the present, I suppose.

Alas.

[Winchester]

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

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Winchester' date='May 17 2005, 02:16 AM'] It may have been a dubious war, but I'm sure glad I'm no Englishman. [/quote]
Your avatar disagrees.

[Socrates]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='May 17 2005, 12:30 AM'] The argument is whether or not the Second British Civil War was a just one. You argue that it was. Others are arguing that it was not. Does it mean those Americans arguing the point want to go back under British rule? No. Does it mean I do? No. It's an argument.

"No taxation without Representation" was loaded propaganda. The truth was that they DID have representatives, even if they were not Americans.

Was this slogan fair? No way.

1) They had representatives, as stated earlier.

2) Everyone in England was taxed, whether they had representation or not, whether they had the vote or not.

3) The tax burden on Americans was almost 10 times less than on normal Englishmen. So, extra taxes and customs were placed on goods coming into America, most notably on stamps and on tea.

Why were the British taxed so heavily? The Americans were incurring onto French and Indian land past the Appalachian mountains and, not surprisingly, being attacked there because of it. Those Americans living outside of their borders demand protection, and the British Crown builds forts and maintains armies to protect them. Who paid for this? The British people. When some of this cash was demanded from the Americans in the aforementioned taxes and customs, they revolted, not wanted to pay for their own protection.

This is why the participants of the Boston Tea Party were dressed as Native peoples.

4) The Quebec Act. The British Crown allows the practice of Catholicism and limited (Catholic) self governance north of the "border" (yay!)

Puritans are pissed.

5) Ah the Tea... and the Boston Tea Party.

A slight tax is placed on Tea, an incredibly popular item, not readily grown in the colonies.

This tax alters the price of tea for the normal consumer.

This hurts tea merchants and prompts tea smuggling.

Tea smugglers make MASSIVE profits at this time and enjoy these profits and some become powerful (and rich) people. But how to keep their business going indefinately?

A) Keep the British pissed off and taxing tea.

B) Bust up those Loyalist Tea Mechant's product.

C) Join and help a Revolution, become legitimate and sole merchants of tea in new country.

No surprise here... #1 tea smuggler in late 18th Century American Colonies..... JOHN ADAMS!

So we see that the real reasons for the war were not so noble. And not very just at all. [/quote]
A "representative" from an other country is no representative at all. What would you think if the U.S. ruled Canada and appointed someone from Virginia to "represent" your province in Canada?


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

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

[Don John of Austria]

You still have not answered my questions.

[Ellenita]

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

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



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

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

[Socrates]

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

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

You Brits are cool, though. Seriously.

[Don John of Austria]

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

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

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Winchester' date='May 17 2005, 02:16 AM'] It may have been a dubious war, but I'm sure glad I'm no Englishman. [/quote]



Ditto, igualmente

[God Conquers]

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

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

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

[God Conquers]

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

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

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

Not all the reasons for this practice were sinister.

[son_of_angels]

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

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

[Ellenita]

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

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


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

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



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





Ditto, igualmente [/quote]

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