American Revolution

[Beholder1995]

I've been studying the American Revolutionary War and have always thought the colonists' reasons for revolting were really crappy. I mean- a series of semi-harsh taxes? Is that any reason to cause a revolution? I'm an American myself, so I've always thought it kind of funny my country exists because of a bunch of disgruntled taxpayers. :smalltongue:

[Lord Herman]

Well, if you feel that guilty about it, you can always give it back. :smalltongue:

[BizzaroStormy]

The tax itself wasnt all of the problem. The issue was that the americans werent recieving anything for their taxes.

[Oregano]

Work out much tax you would have payed since the revolution and you can forward it to my bank account.:smallwink:

It seemed really silly to me honest, it would be mroe undertsandable if it was a native american revolt.

EDIT: They weren't Americans though, not really.

[BugFix]

it would be mroe undertsandable if it was a native american revolt.

EDIT: They weren't Americans though, not really.

Without getting into the specifics of modern politics, which are obviously forbidden:

This kind of intolerance is what starts wars, literally. The colonists of the 1770's were born in north america, as were their parents and their grandparents. The overwhelming majority would never see europe, nor know anyone who did. So where were they "native" to, if not their own homes?

But wait, you say, there are these other people who are also "native" to north america? Yup, them too. Their grandparents were, in most cases, pushed aside by the grandparents of the colonists. And that sucked.

So who was right? See the point? Do you see any interesting analogs in the modern world which might also apply (and which, clearly, we need to avoid talking about)?

The way you resolve this stuff is by getting along, by asking for and accepting forgiveness, and by trying to move forward in the one world we're given to live in. Defining the issue in terms of recrimination, or trying to define who was "really" an american just makes you enemies, and doesn't help anything but your own ego.

[Dihan]

I blame the Romantics. Those silly men/women who engage in hyperbole.

[Crow]

If you read the Declaration of Independence, they list a long series of reasons and the recourse that they had already attempted. Seriously, it's all right there. Then you can make your judgement.

[Oregano]

Bugfix, you seem to have misunderstood my post, well I think you did, what I was saying was the people who revolted were the same as the people they were revolting against and as you say they should have resolved it through getting along.

I didn't mean any intolerance either, so sorry if it seemed that way.

Crow: I've never read the declaration of independence but it'd be interesting to see what it says.

[Innis Cabal]

this is seriously one of the silliest things i've ever seen. Keep reading up on it.

[BugFix]

the people who revolted were the same as the people they were revolting against

And again, I say that's a ridiculous (and, frankly, insulting) simplification. I can just as easily claim, using the same logic, that you are "the same as" an australian, and therefore should be subject to the aussie government. Have you or your ancestors ever been to australia? Doesn't matter. You are one now, hah!

Is this really what they're teaching you guys about 18th century history over there?

[Oregano]

Ahh I haven't actually stated this but want I mean is the war was wrong, not the fact they booted the English out but the fact that it was people(maybe some even related) that were killing each other, that's what I find wrong about it.

And the Australia isn't a very good example because the Queen is important over there(I don't know what the correct term is). And you also made a simplification.

EDIT: It probably would have been better If I stated it was the war I thought was silly.

@V: I'll read it when I'm less tired and can actually make out what it says.

[UserClone]

Read it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Us_declaration_independence.jpg), THEN discuss.

[Beholder1995]

My point is that the colonists really revolted over something (as far as I can tell) that wasn't a big deal. Reading over the Declaration, they speak of tyrannies and abuses and ursurpations. They were TAXES, for God's sake! If congress today passed a series of unpopular and strict taxes, the U.S. wouldn't split apart! Certainly, the colonists didn't try anything diplomatic. They burned buildings and tarred and feathered tax collectors doing their jobs! The colonists never even tried negotiations. I don't think a temporary tax on various goods is an ursurpation on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

On another note, the sentances in the Declaration are long. Even I've never written a sentance with that many commas!

EDIT::: I found this article particularly enlightening: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

[Innis Cabal]

My point is that the colonists really revolted over something (as far as I can tell) that wasn't a big deal. Reading over the Declaration, they speak of tyrannies and abuses and ursurpations. They were TAXES, for God's sake! If congress today passed a series of unpopular and strict taxes, the U.S. wouldn't split apart! Certainly, the colonists didn't try anything diplomatic. They burned buildings and tarred and feathered tax collectors doing their jobs! The colonists never even tried negotiations. I don't think a temporary tax on various goods is an ursurpation on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

On another note, the sentances in the Declaration are long. Even I've never written a sentance with that many commas!

EDIT::: I found this article particularly enlightening: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

Thats because congress dosn't operate like Pre-American British Parliment.

Those "tax's that werent that big a deal" were in fact some hefty(for the times) tax's, one after another, on people who couldnt even say "Hey.....cut it out" and have it done. Don't know how much more i can say without treading ban country, but its not like they decided after a week to just revolt. If you feel the American Revolution was a bad idea, what do you think of the French Revolution? Or any other Revolution that almost -every- major world power has gone through

[SDF]

The real reason the Americans revolted? Coffee. Think about it, Ben Franklin and all his buds discovered it in South America and were like, "Hey, we want this all to ourselves!" So they threw out the British tea, and started their own country. Bloodshed ensues.

[Crow]

The thing is, if you are taxed heavily nowadays, you can vote the bastards who taxed you so heavily out of office. The colonists couldn't really do that. Their complaints were not being heeded by the powers that be (If you actually read it, it describes the measures they went through to peacefully resolve the issue...but they were ignored and rebuked again and again). Remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing?

You may think that taxes are no big deal. You pay what? Seventeen, Nineteen, maybe as much as thirty-six percent (I think that's about what I pay) of your income to taxes? Which is, by the way, not a whole lot at all compared to many other countries. The colonists were paying much more in taxes than we in America probably ever will. Could you imagine forking over 60% of your paycheck to Uncle Sam? I don't know that they had income tax, but they certainly had taxes on goods. Imagine if the tax on every purchase you made cost more than the item you were purchasing, and you couldn't do jack about it because you had no representation. Really put yourself in that position. Wouldn't you desire representation? Again, refer to the section where it discusses all the times they appealed to the governement and were ignored.

[Nibleswick]

The big trouble was that we were being denied the same rights as any other citizens of Great Briton as set forth in the Magna Carta and other documents. Many people in power believed quite seriously that they didn't apply to us because we weren't born in England.

[Innis Cabal]

the first federal income tax was implimented in the Civil War

[Beholder1995]

Thats because congress dosn't operate like Pre-American British Parliment.

Those "tax's that werent that big a deal" were in fact some hefty(for the times) tax's, one after another, on people who couldnt even say "Hey.....cut it out" and have it done. Don't know how much more i can say without treading ban country, but its not like they decided after a week to just revolt. If you feel the American Revolution was a bad idea, what do you think of the French Revolution? Or any other Revolution that almost -every- major world power has gone through

You have a point. And the Revolution was good- if it hadn't happened, the world would probably be in a worse state. But they could've just sucked it up and paid the taxes. The taxes were to pay for a war that kept the colonists safe. And the only reason there was a series of taxes was because the colonists nearly revolted after each one was passed, and Parliament revoked the taxes because of that. The colonists were whiners. But when Parliament finally became stricter and didn't revoke the tea tax, a bunch of yahoos dressed up as indians and dumped a shipload of tea into Boston Harbor. I think of it as a spoiled child- The parent does something the child doesn't like, so the child throws a fit and the lenient parent decides to give the child what they want. The process repeats itself until the child really does something against the rules to protest its parent, and the parent then seriously punishes them.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

They revolted not because they were being taxed, but because they weren't getting anything back at all. They had no say in the Parliament, and were being taxed more every year for wars abroad. They were being taxed more than the British people, who also had a measure of patriotism for their land, which the Americans didn't have for Britain.

Oh, and slightly off topic, but is it just me, or is Innis' avatar having sex with a plant?

[Beholder1995]

Looks like. Which half is Innis' Avatar?

Still.... they didn't need to revolt.

[GenLee]

The Revolution was about taxes, and more. One and half other issues were really burning them. The half is that the taxes were all new, having been added since 1763. Before that, over one hundred years of being colonies, they were not taxed by the Parliament or Crown. IIRC, they did pay taxes to the government of whatever colony they lived in, as levied by the various colonial legislatures. So the new taxes seemed to be unconstitutional (there wasn't a constitution, but it was an implicit understanding).
The other point is that when the taxes started, and some other tightening of government control rolled around, British soldiers were stationed in the colonies. There hadn't been regulars in the colonies before, even when the British were at war with the French or Spanish, until 1755. The army arrived with the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War to Americans), when the French were driven out.
Since there weren't any more French armies in Canada to threaten the colonies, the conclusion that the colonists reached was that the soldiers were there to enforce the new illegal taxes, and perhaps to prevent them from electing governors or legislators that would stand up to the London Parliament. *That* sounded like tyranny. Even more when those soldiers and the new governors started suspending legal rights that had existed before 1775.
{In defense of the Parliament and King, that was an expensive war, and the colonies had not been paying taxes. Seems to me some kind of payment was in order, but this was obviously not the way to go about it.}
There were colonial attempts to negotiate before 1776, and some of the Continental Congress members held out for more talks, before pulling the plug in late June 1776. Ben Franklin had spent several *years* in London as a negotiator for Pennsylvania, and was largely ignored.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

the Dio half.

Wait, is the other half some sort of ninja?

[averagejoe]

It's because the didn't want to be ruled by a bunch of prats in silly wigs. In America! :smallamused:

Seriously, though, it's never really as simple as history makes it out to be; taxation is one of the major things listed, but in the end the continental congress was made of individuals with their own desires and motivations. It is my (pretty uninformed) opinion that a lot of it just came down to the Brits having no real right to rule the colonies. I mean, there's a terrific geographic and temporal separation, especially back then, and in the end such a government just cannot be satisfactory.

[Beholder1995]

Oh, wait! Now I see. The white robot-thing is behind the human. (You can see his legs behind him) They appear to be dancing.

[Innis Cabal]

Offtopic for a second. Look up JoJo's Bizarre adventure, and you'll get it. Its his Stand, Za Warudo.

Ontopic, yes the revolution was good on the american side, not so great for the britian side

[Chronos]

Not only were the colonists paying taxes they didn't want to, in some cases, they were paying taxes on things they shouldn't have had to buy in the first place. For instance, Americans were growing cotton, shipping it to England to be processed and woven into clothes, and then buying the clothes (with a tax attached) after they were shipped back here. Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just weave the cotton into clothes right here? Yes, but the English wouldn't allow the colonists to do that, because that would cut into the profits of the English textile factories.

[Beholder1995]

@GenLee: True, but the colonies didn't go about it the right way either. :smalltongue: As far as I can tell from what you said, it was a combination of taxes, ignorance on the colonists' parts, and a dislike of new things. I probably got it all wrong, though.

[Beholder1995]

Not only were the colonists paying taxes they didn't want to, in some cases, they were paying taxes on things they shouldn't have had to buy in the first place. For instance, Americans were growing cotton, shipping it to England to be processed and woven into clothes, and then buying the clothes (with a tax attached) after they were shipped back here. Wouldn't it have been more efficient to just weave the cotton into clothes right here? Yes, but the English wouldn't allow the colonists to do that, because that would cut into the profits of the English textile factories.

Actually, that puts it into perspective very well. So the Colonists were pretty much being oppressed economically, and couldn't do anything about it because the people it Britain wouldn't listen to them. So now I see where the rebels were coming from, as revolt almost seems like the only option they had to improve their lot. :smallsmile:

[Renegade Paladin]

:smallsigh:


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

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 harass 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 benefit 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.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
I have rendered the complaints that are unrelated to taxes in bold faced font; particularly egregious offenses are also italicized and underlined. Now then, you were saying?

[RobotPerfomance]

Basically the Brits were taking two bites out of every colonist’s piece of pie and when they said "we do like that.... you can't do that" The Kings said watch me and stuck it to them even more. The colonists said we aren't taking this any more. Also the above post is very detailed and sites a primary source so that is made of win.

[Pyro]

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

My friends and I giggled for about 5 minutes over that section in my history class this year. The Battle of New Orleans was also the subject of much laughter.

[Nibleswick]

My friends and I giggled for about 5 minutes over that section in my history class this year. The Battle of New Orleans was also the subject of much laughter.

It was the alligator that was used as a canon right. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zyXrxfjEOhs&feature=related):smallbiggrin:

[Don Julio Anejo]

Don Julio's perspective on how revolutions often happen:

In any sufficiently oppressed country there's always a group unhappy with the current government that wants to overthrow it.

There's also a bunch of people who are pissed off at particular things, like the Boston Tea Society (completely made up, I'm just making an example) who were pissed off at the tea tax. Due to group polarization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization) they one day decide to show their discontent against the British by dressing up as Natives, climbing on board a ship and dumping all the tea on it into the sea.

It snowballs from there, as other groups decide to do similar things (I can't remember what the concept is called, if it even has a name, it's when a person wants to do something but doesn't for fear of negative criticism or some other reason but readily does it if he sees another person do the same thing, something along the lines of rebel effect).

Eventually group #1 (the conspirators) decides to take over the whole thing and run a proper revolution instead of random rioting in random places.

This happened in the US in 1776, in France in 1789 with the storming of Bastille, in Russia in 1917 (the March Revolution, not the October one, where the Bolsheviks effectively got control of the country even though the provisional government was still technically in charge) and in lots of other places that don't immediately spring up to mind.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Specifically on the American revolution - the problem is, it happened a very long time ago. The reasons are buried in history, and I doubt that most people (unless they are studying American history) know very much beyond the popularized reasons.

For example, nowadays most western people automatically assume that the Russian Revolution was evil and was just a way for Bolsheviks to grab power. However, what they don't realize is just how bad the life in the times was for an average person living in those times (nobles, businessmen and clergy aside) and what effects it had on the world at large other than the creation of the USSR. For one thing, we owe much of our social security to the revolution - the governments, especially in places like Germany and the UK were pretty much forced to somehow help the urban poor, especially during the Great Depression, or risk massive revolts, probably supported by the Russians.

Something similar could have easily happened in America at the time. However, as I said, most of us probably wouldn't know what exactly went on.

[Crow]

:smallsigh:


I have rendered the complaints that are unrelated to taxes in bold faced font; particularly egregious offenses are also italicized and underlined. Now then, you were saying?

Goshdarnit people. Renegade Paladin pretty plainly showed everyone what I have been trying to say. The reasons are listed quite clearly in the document itself. They are hidden by history or anything like that. They. Are. Right. There.

[Serpentine]

I seem to recall that the source of a lot of the problems were that the US was under the authority of the British parliament, but had no representative in it. It could also be that the situation was similar to the one still in Australia: The king/queen had more power over there than in his/her own country.


And the Revolution was good- if it hadn't happened, the world would probably be in a worse state.Uh... :smallconfused:
>waves 10-foot-pole at, decides not to touch with it<

[Griever]

Some very good points here, especially the direct citation of the DoI. Just to clarify some points:

The main problems that began the soon-snowballing into revolution revolved around imperialist economics.

For a long time since Jamestown's founding, the British settlers had traded with Spanish and French settlers as a necessity for survival. However, when the colonies became more and more self-sufficient (read: acting more independantly with trade from Europe), Britain forbade the colonists from trading with anyone but Mother England (also known as mercantilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism)).

This put a heavy economic strain on the colonies, but provided quite the boom for England. The colonists did grumble quite abit, but they still benefited from British naval protection and no taxes.

Around this time (as I recall, been awhile) the French and Indian War (or the Seven Year's War, to our European posters) came about, which truly woke England up about the freeness of the colonies. With the defeat of the French, which cost the British a bucketload (as it was also taking place elsewhere), the British gained some land on the western side of the Appalacian mountains, which caused many colonists to want to move there. Fearing this would only exacerbate their already precarious position on keeping the colonies loyal, England forbade settlement on the other side of the mountain, which yet again ticked many people off.

Then, to help pay for the war, England instituted some small taxes. The outrage was not over paying the taxes, but the fact that they were instituted without any consent from the colonists (coming from the consent of the governed statement lined out in the DoI which in themselves came from Locke, if memory serves).

The colonists countless times took many peaceful measures to try to petition the king (although such incidents as the Boston "Massacre" and the Boston Tea Party did -not- help the king's mood), which all met with failure.

So the king set forth the Townshend Acts (better known as the "Intolerable Acts") which, to be quite honest, completely and severely pissed off all the colonists.

So in the end, it wasn't just some taxes that did it, more like the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Pyro]

It was the alligator that was used as a canon right. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zyXrxfjEOhs&feature=related):smallbiggrin:

Hah, not quite. I believe the history behind it is the Americans attacked the British at New Orleans and whooped them pretty good. That would be all well and good, except the peace treaty had been signed or was being signed at that point.

We just found it hilarious imagining the american diplomats sheepishingly shrugging their shoulders saying, "Whoops...sorry about that:smallredface:".

[Beholder1995]

:smallsigh:


I have rendered the complaints that are unrelated to taxes in bold faced font; particularly egregious offenses are also italicized and underlined. Now then, you were saying?

First of all, my hat's off to you for doing that. But all of those are saying effectively the same thing: "The king is mean. We deserve to make our own country." As far as I can tell from book I've read, King George wasn't that bad a guy. Parliament was mostly to blame (I think), but the Declaration seems to point fingers at one man. Since King George didn't really do anything short of passing all the taxes (or whatever the King did then), it seems all of your points are just dramatizations of pretty much the same complaint, which is derived from unfair taxes and economic troubles. I mean, all they say in there is that King George is a tyrant! Which isn't really true! When presidents pass unliked taxes, nobody calls them a tyrant (short of that wierdo down the street). Again, all of your non-tax-related points are dramatizations of the same thing.

EDIT::: Okay, reading over it again, I see a few other things. I still think most of them are dramatizations, but your underline parts.... eh. I don't even think that happened. Nowhere, in any modern history books I've read, has it said anything like burning happened until the start of the Revolution, in 1774.

[Crow]

EDIT::: Okay, reading over it again, I see a few other things. I still think most of them are dramatizations, but your underline parts.... eh. I don't even think that happened. Nowhere, in any modern history books I've read, has it said anything like burning happened until the start of the Revolution, in 1774.

Oh yes. The whole thing was a complete and utter farce. I'm glad you came along and cleared that up for us. Books written over 200 years after the fact are obviously a much better source than a document written when it happened. To think, all these years we looked at the founding fathers as heroes, and really they were just pissed off tax payers and nothing more. Seriously, if none of it ever happened, don't you think somebody who read the document back then would have pointed it out?

edit: The taxes you pay are among the lightest in the world right now. We don't need to revolt when the president signs in a new tax because it is lighter than the rest of the world pays in the first place. Furthermore, you can vote his ass out next election. You can't do that with a king.

edit II: {Borrows Serpentine's 10-foot Pole, so as to avoid 3rd major infraction}

[Emperor Ing]

Hah, not quite. I believe the history behind it is the Americans attacked the British at New Orleans and whooped them pretty good. That would be all well and good, except the peace treaty had been signed or was being signed at that point.

We just found it hilarious imagining the american diplomats sheepishingly shrugging their shoulders saying, "Whoops...sorry about that:smallredface:".

the reason behind that is, they didn't have the webernet, or telephones at the time, so information traveled slowly.

[RTGoodman]

My friends and I giggled for about 5 minutes over that section in my history class this year. The Battle of New Orleans was also the subject of much laughter.

That's the, uh, wrong war there. That'd be the War of 1812, not the American Revolution. :smalltongue:

Anyway, this thread inspired me to go look back over my notes from my American Military History to 1900 class I took back a last Fall. Now, as a military history class, the focus, even when discussing why the American Revolution began, was with a military perspective, but I think it's still valid, and I don't think anyone has mentioned some of this before. (Spoilered because, well, I'm apparently long-winded.)

Now, the Townshend Duties and other taxes were one big talking point. The truth is, they might have been on common goods and, really, no one wants to pay taxes anyway, but for the most part they weren't that bad. The Townshend Duties were on Paint, paper, lead, glass, and tea, with the tea tax being the worst, and it was only 2 shillings per pound.

The problem, as so often cited, was that the colonists wanted "No Taxation Without Representation." Really, though, to a lot of modern scholars, that's not really enough reason either. Even given the opportunity to have representation in Parliament, the colonists probably wouldn't have gone with - Mother England and Parliament was just too far away and the conditions so different that even having a couple of guys in Parliament wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

From the military perspective, one major problem was that the American colonists just seem to have an inborn distrust of the British military (primarily the Army, but also the Navy). The colonists had militias that were poorly-trained for the most part and had only been made so that local men could protect their home areas from Native Americans. The British Army, on the other hand, used American militias extensively in older colonial wars and forced them far away from their homes to fight for stuff that wasn't that big a deal to them. (For instance, during King George's War, the British tried to take the Spanish city of Cartagena in South America with a force of around 10,000 men - 4,100 or so were Americans. When all was said and done, only 1,400 of those 4,100 survived.) This kind of thing (plus that whole thing is Louisbourg in Canada, where British and Americans captured the area but were forced to return it, to the colonists' displeasure, at the end of the war) made many Americans distrust the Army, while press gangs from the Navy snatched up men during the night and forced them into service.

Anyway, by the 1760s-70s, the taxes and all that were in full swing and Americans didn't like it. So people like the Sons of Liberty (described by my professor as "the biggest, meanest thugs Samuel Adams could find") started things like the Boston Tea Party to try to force Britain's hand, even resorting to physical threats against the tax collectors. The tax collectors, definitely "loyalists," asked for assistance and so British troops started being stationed in the colonies, and things like the Quartering Act of 1764 meant that colonists had to PAY for the Army to be quartered there (which, of course, they didn't like). When 5 March 1770 rolled around, there were British troops stationed near the Customs House in Boston, and that evening they got into a friendly little snowball fight with some local teenagers. Well, seeing this, others in the area started throwing snowballs, too - snowballs packed with rocks. The soldiers called for their officers but paniced and 10 fired, leaving 11 dead before hearing the officers' cease-fire orders. That was the so-called "Boston Massacre."

From there, relations didn't get much better and propaganda and arguments between Loyalists and anti-British colonists basically snowballed into the Revolution a few years later. Really, no one side was really "right" or anything - the British weren't really handling the colonies that well (which should be expected with, you know, a whole ocean between them), but a lot of the colonists wanted their own freedom anyway (especially those who had their lands West of the Appalachians taken away by the Proclamation of 1763), and were using everything that the British did as evidence that America needed her independence.


And there's your special 4th of July history lecture, brought to you by your friendly Playground history major. :smalltongue: Really, though, there's not much sense in arguing who was right or wrong because, really, it's not going to change anything. I REALLY don't see the Queen ordering the Army to come back and retake our pesky colonies, so we might as well celebrate our independence anyway! Happy Independence Day!

[DraPrime]

Also, the war inevitably sparked because the British tried to take weapons from the militias around Boston. This annoyed the Americans not only because they love guns, but because the militias had always been armed for a very long time, and taking their weapon stockpiles didn't bring great joy to many. And from there we get the whole thing with Paul Revere riding around on his horse ranting about people wearing red.

[Crow]

Rifles and muskets were worth a pretty decent chunk of change back then (and now). I'd be pissed if the gummint took away my firearms without any reimbursement (and let's be honest, even with reimbursement I'd be pissed).

[thubby]

i don't think the dissolving of local governments has been emphasized nearly enough.
what england did to the colonies' governing bodies would be roughly on the same level as the federal government dismissing you're mayor and appointing an arbiter (who may or may not be corrupt) who could only be overruled by the president, and the president then moving to the moon.

[EvilElitest]

Hah, not quite. I believe the history behind it is the Americans attacked the British at New Orleans and whooped them pretty good. That would be all well and good, except the peace treaty had been signed or was being signed at that point.

We just found it hilarious imagining the american diplomats sheepishingly shrugging their shoulders saying, "Whoops...sorry about that:smallredface:".

Actually, the Americans were basically sueing for peace, When they won that battle, we basically gave the british the finger to the old treaty and made a new one

On the actual subject, here are some fun facts.

America had the highest standard of living in the British Emperor, and the land of Britain was paying higher taxes. However, the Americas, particularly the founding fathers, resented the fact that they didn't have equal representation in the British government (don't forget the stamp act and the intolerable acts).

I'll admit that as far as revolutions go, the reasoning was kinda lame, but the point was still valid, more so because the founding fathers were well versed in the French ideas of Democracy and what not (the new ones by the way). Basically, America was fed up with the mother country, and didn't see why they had to put up with them.
from
EE

[Beholder1995]

I'll admit that as far as revolutions go, the reasoning was kinda lame, but the point was still valid, more so because the founding fathers were well versed in the French ideas of Democracy and what not (the new ones by the way). Basically, America was fed up with the mother country, and didn't see why they had to put up with them.
from
EE

That is probably the best summary of anything I've ever heard. Well done! *clapping*

[thubby]

it always amuses me when people bring democracy into these things, since the U.S. is a republic.

[Griever]

Democratic Republic, actually.

[EvilElitest]

That is probably the best summary of anything I've ever heard. Well done! *clapping*

thanks a lot,

The real interesting thing about the American Revolution, and i don't want to seem like an nationalist here, but it is truly remarkable as far as revolutions go. I don't want to tread to far into real world topics, but it is rare, and i mean really really rare when revolutions are as clean as the American one, most of the time it is far more brutal, and chaotic. The french Revolutions is a good example of a more "typical" revolution, you know, oppressed rise up, there are some massacres, a government is set up, can't handle everything, a ruthless purge occurs, new government takes over, too disorganized/corrupt, a strong man over throws them, then slowly makes the nation into a dictatorship (see avatar)
Not to say it isn't an amazing time period to study

now the American Revolution is odd in that it isn't the totally oppressed rising up against the ruthless oppressor (the Boston Massacre was not really a massacre) it was more of a secession, with the Americans simply realizing they no longer need the British

Now to be fair, the British really didn't care that much at first you must recall. They were kind pissed, but they didn't send their elite troops and quite frankly, at the time the 13 colonies weren't worth the effort of GB sending their full force against us.


And yes, the US is a democratic Republic

hope that helped :smallbiggrin:
from
EE
edit
When you say anything, you mean the thread right? It would be interesting if i did the best summery of anything ever, i could become a teacher

Also, how can you clap if...... you don't have any hands. Ah i need to write this stuff down

[GenLee]

thanks a lot,

The real interesting thing about the American Revolution, and i don't want to seem like an nationalist here, but it is truly remarkable as far as revolutions go. I don't want to tread to far into real world topics, but it is rare, and i mean really really rare when revolutions are as clean as the American one, most of the time it is far more brutal, and chaotic. The french Revolutions is a good example of a more "typical" revolution, you know, oppressed rise up, there are some massacres, a government is set up, can't handle everything, a ruthless purge occurs, new government takes over, too disorganized/corrupt, a strong man over throws them, then slowly makes the nation into a dictatorship (see avatar)


For which we can thank George Washington, and some others, that the US did not have that kind of "republic" or "revolution." George Washington stared down the 1783 Newburgh Conspiracy to march on Congress, he also refused to be King or President-for-Life. John Adams kept us away from a full war with France in 1798 that might have turned into a civil war, and then accepted that he lost the 1800 election, as much as that hurt.

[EvilElitest]

For which we can thank George Washington, and some others, that the US did not have that kind of "republic" or "revolution." George Washington stared down the 1783 Newburgh Conspiracy to march on Congress, he also refused to be King or President-for-Life. John Adams kept us away from a full war with France in 1798 that might have turned into a civil war, and then accepted that he lost the 1800 election, as much as that hurt.

pretty much, i mean as for as up risings go, we got really really really lucky.
from
EE

[DraPrime]

pretty much, i mean as for as up risings go, we got really really really lucky.
from
EE

Didn't we also have a few uprisings back when we only had the Articles of Confederation? The Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind.

[EvilElitest]

Didn't we also have a few uprisings back when we only had the Articles of Confederation? The Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind.

oh it was far from perfect, but we were able to restore stability without any major problems.
from
EE

[Dave Rapp]

The colonists of the 1770's were born in north america, as were their parents and their grandparents. The overwhelming majority would never see europe, nor know anyone who did. So where were they "native" to, if not their own homes?

But wait, you say, there are these other people who are also "native" to north america? Yup, them too. Their grandparents were, in most cases, pushed aside by the grandparents of the colonists. And that sucked.

Defining the issue in terms of recrimination, or trying to define who was "really" an american just makes you enemies, and doesn't help anything but your own ego.

I'm going to quote this every time a Native American Indian tries to tell me I'm "really an immigrant" or something to that effect.


And the Revolution was good- if it hadn't happened, the world would probably be in a worse state.

*borrows Serpentine's pole* Oh yeah, I'm totally touching this.

America gave the world McDonalds, and thus french fries and the double quarter-pounder with cheese. I dare anyone to say that the world wouldn't suck without us.

[EvilElitest]

I'm going to quote this every time a Native American Indian tries to tell me I'm "really an immigrant" or something to that effect.

As long as you except legal mexican immigrants, your good



*borrows Serpentine's pole* Oh yeah, I'm totally touching this.

America gave the world McDonalds, and thus french fries and the double quarter-pounder with cheese. I dare anyone to say that the world wouldn't suck without us.

I think the US has done some great things, MD isn't one of them. Diabeties is a real problem at current, but that is touching modern politics too much
from
EE

[Pyro]

Didn't we also have a few uprisings back when we only had the Articles of Confederation? The Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind.

In my history class we also talked about Shay's Rebellion. I believe that was one reason why we ousted the articles.


Actually, the Americans were basically sueing for peace, When they won that battle, we basically gave the british the finger to the old treaty and made a new one

I knew on the straight facts it was far less amusing then I remembered. However my history book did say after the signing, but I don't trust that book. It's a piece of junk.


That's the, uh, wrong war there. That'd be the War of 1812, not the American Revolution.

O yeah sorry. I should have known though with Andrew Jackson and all.

@ randomizer
Of course, but heh, the image of George Washington with a cellphone is ridiculous.