NationStates Jolt Archive

Today in my AP US History Class we were presented with a difficult question. Was the American Revolution justified? Did the colonies have the right to rebel, or were they merely terrorists? Do you think Britain was in the right, or the colonies? Feel free to say whatever, but preferably try to back up a “big” claim or statement with proof of some sort.

Also, please keep current anti American arguments and sentiments out of this. Just because you don’t like the policies of Bush don’t say, “Lolz, they were teh wrong!” I want to try and keep this constructive and civil as it is actually a great argument.

I tend to support self-determination, so yes, I think the colonists were justified in rebellion.

I don't know if it was worth the lives lost, though.

I tend to support self-determination, so yes, I think the colonists were justified in rebellion.

I don't know if it was worth the lives lost, though.

Freedom isn't free. You may think it is, but it isn't.

The point of the American Revolution has been lost today. Our Founding Fathers threw off the yoke of whimsical, arbitrary rule from one King George, and now the nation has come full circle back into the whimsical, arbitrary rule of another.

Freedom isn't free. You may think it is, but it isn't.

I'm aware of that.

What I doubt is not the necessity of violence to achieve the objective (at least at the time) but the worthiness of the objective weighed against the necessary costs.

They won, so it was justified. If they'd lost, it wouldn't have been. ;)

I think they were justified.

Initially, what the colonists wanted was representation in Parliament, which was denied them as they were living in a colony and not technically inside any British province.

The revolution dind't just start overnight. The push for representatives in government went on for years, all the while the colonists feeling that they were being exploited and over taxed even though they werne't gaining any of the benefits of government spending. Essentially they had to provide for themselves AND send additional money back to London.

Civil dissatisfaction evolved into unrest which evolved into rioting and it's a short step from rioting to revolution if it spreads fast enough. A couple years into the war the King was willing to give representation to the colonies but by then it was too late. People had been whipped up into a fervor for independence and there was no turning back.

So it's hard to say whether it was justified, since I dont' th ink there was a singular moment when peopl emade a conscious decision to revolt. It just sort of evolved into it.

I think they were justified.

Initially, what the colonists wanted was representation in Parliament, which was denied them as they were living in a colony and not technically inside any British province.

The revolution dind't just start overnight. The push for representatives in government went on for years, all the while the colonists feeling that they were being exploited and over taxed even though they werne't gaining any of the benefits of government spending. Essentially they had to provide for themselves AND send additional money back to London.

Civil dissatisfaction evolved into unrest which evolved into rioting and it's a short step from rioting to revolution if it spreads fast enough. A couple years into the war the King was willing to give representation to the colonies but by then it was too late. People had been whipped up into a fervor for independence and there was no turning back.

So it's hard to say whether it was justified, since I dont' th ink there was a singular moment when peopl emade a conscious decision to revolt. It just sort of evolved into it.

Interesting that you mention riots. There was a long string of riots in colonial America, going back into the 1600's. Seems the riot was the Englishman's way of expressing his displeasure with things in general back in those days.

It's odd... they paid less taxes than the English, and much larger places like Liverpool and Manchester didn't have representation either.

Meh... that said, the Americans made the closest thing to a democracy at the time. And they had a cool flag and cooler uniforms.

And they gave us Lynyrd Skynyrd...

But the Brits gave us the Beatles...

I DONT KNOW! :(

Interesting that you mention riots. There was a long string of riots in colonial America, going back into the 1600's. Seems the riot was the Englishman's way of expressing his displeasure with things in general back in those days.

People riot when they have no other way of getting their opinions/feelings across to their government. Note the most recent riots were in France (minority youth who were not being treated as equal citizens by their government), China (where there really is no "real" law enforcement or legal system), and places like Argentina, Cuba, and other places with dictatorial leadership and very little chance of civilly getting your opinion heard.

We have far fewer riots here in the US, and when we have them, I think they're a huge wake up call for our government (or at least ought to be).

I tend to support self-determination, so yes, I think the colonists were justified in rebellion.

I don't know if it was worth the lives lost, though.

is it self-determination if the country is founded by the other?


iirc, the 13 colonies paid the lowest taxes of anywhere in the british empire. and the revolution, as i understand it, started out of anger at paying taxes to the british crown.
i don't care either way.

It's odd... they paid less taxes than the English, and much larger places like Liverpool and Manchester didn't have representation either.

Then Liverpool and Manchester should have revolted, too. Imagine if the UK were splintered today...wait, then it would have been easier for the Nazis to take over...shit. But on the other hand, the War of 1812 wouldn't have taken place if the UK were splintered, and if the Germans haad won WWI, that means no Hitler. Just an annoying Kaiser in Europe who happens to lord over France, and the U.S. would have been too backward to notice or care, considering there was no War of 1812 to galvanize them. OK, they wouldn't have been backward; something else would have galvanized them, but it would have taken longer. Oh yeah, and since WWI helped trigger the Communist Revolution in Russia, that doesn't happen either, and some other bunch of assholes takes over Russia after a civil war.

WW2 wouldn't have been WW2; it would have been USA vs. Japan, with the USA's victory shaping a modern, no-Communism Asia. The shaping of Asia would be designed to prevent another uprising like the Japanese military dictatorship, not to stop the spread of communism. Chiang Kai-shek would have done with China what Syngman Rhee did with South Korea, and China, Japan, and Korea would be democracies today. Southeast Asia would largely be German colonies, though, as the Kaiser jars Indochina out of France. Hmmm...interesting questions arise from a shattered UK. I won't go too much more into this, but maybe I should.

I think the question itself may be problematic. Does an action, like revolution, -need- justification? And if so, from whose perspective? Obviously, the Founding Fathers felt justified, as did the people fighting. Conversely, the English, at least the governement, at the time (my havning no personal concept of current feelings on the matter...) likely felt such a revolution was unjustified, seeing as they were willing to fight against it.
Thus, the question becomes not 'was it justified', but 'how was it justified'. Most of us Americans are brought up being bombarded by the justifications, the reasonings, behind the revolution. Though that does give us a particular perspective on the issue (and our country wouldn't exist otherwise...), I question if any side can make an absolute judgement on something like justification.
Also, is there such a thing as a 'right' to rebel? Rebellion is, at its heart, the act of not following the current set of rules. Given that, does a rule that allows you to break the rules really matter, given the fact that you're breaking the rules?

My personal feeling...Yes, the revolution was justified. In the end, the colonists won. Morality and high-minded ideals are wonderful for debate, but practicality and results ultimately make the difference.

The American Revolution was indeed justified on the basis that it was the end result of a long chain of abuses against the colonies, that began with various taxation laws that were levied without the consent of the colonies, and ended with the quartering of British troops in the private households lof law abiding British subjects in the city of Boston.

The British government, while responsive in the short term and removing some of the most odious actions, continued on a long term campaign of oppresion against the colonists, lifting one burden from the backs of the colonists and placing another on them.

The final act that justified the colonists was the British assault on the colonists duly constituted legislatures, and the defenses that those legislatures had erected. By attempting to seize the store of defensive armaments owned by the people, and administered by their elected representatives they violated whatever sort of peace was existing, and they did away with voluntary consent, instead opting for the use of force.

For more on the matter, refer to Mr. Jefferson's writings:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

If you have no representation in the government then it is not legitement.

is it self-determination if the country is founded by the other?


iirc, the 13 colonies paid the lowest taxes of anywhere in the british empire. and the revolution, as i understand it, started out of anger at paying taxes to the british crown.
i don't care either way.

I'd say it is still self determination...to draw the analogy to family, my parents created me, yet I still have the right to determine my own path...Britain founded the colonies, yes. But they had the right (as all citizens do) to reject that rule and found their own.

And the revolution came out of more than just taxes, although that was a large part of it. The English were also sending their criminals over here, the army was quartered in civilian homes...even the issue with the taxes wasn't about the amount being charged, but over the fact that they were being chaged without the colonies concent.

Personally, I think just about any revolution is justified.

I think the Declaration of Independence makes a pretty good argument.. :D

That said, the real answer can't be known simply by reading on the topic... I like to think I'd have joined the revolution if I was there at the time, but there are a thousand incidental factors that are unknowable unless you were alive at the time.

yes. as any revolution thqat takes a country TOWARD freedom or intends to (like the failed french revolution). revolutions that are against freedom lkike irans are not.

If you have no representation in the government then it is not legitement.

If you have no representation in the government, what else are you going to do? Asking nicely obviously didn't do it, and without representation, there are not any legitimate political methods (because you don't have representation). At that point, you either sit down and take it or stand up and fight.

No, of course not. Violence never achieves anything, duh.
The Americans should have held hands around the British govonors house and army camps and sung happy songs about peace and love. THAT would have made the British leave.

No, of course not. Violence never achieves anything, duh.
The Americans should have held hands around the British govonors house and army camps and sung happy songs about peace and love. THAT would have made the British leave.

It would have driven them batty, that's for certain...

Today in my AP US History Class we were presented with a difficult question. Was the American Revolution justified?

what's difficult about it? monarchy is inherently unjustified, therefore throwing one off is always justified (at least as far as that goes - what happens next is also at least slightly important in terms of overall justness).

a more difficult question would be about the justness of the american counter-revolution a few years later - the leadership of which included at least one person who plotted a coup against the revolution during the war.

Was the American Revolution justified?
I don't think that's objectively knowable.
Freedom isn't free.
$1.05
monarchy is inherently unjustified
I think you need to support that claim.

$1.05



adjust for inflation its more like $3.70 in today's dollars.

Also the US would have been better off if they stuck with Britain.

adjust for inflation its more like $3.70 in today's dollars.

Also the US would have been better off if they stuck with Britain.

Doubtful.

I tend to support self-determination, so yes, I think the colonists were justified in rebellion.

I don't know if it was worth the lives lost, though.
I agree with you. Imperialism is wrong... the right to self-determination is important.

Freedom isn't free. You may think it is, but it isn't.
Indeed. Bloodless revolutions are few and far between, unfortunately.

I think you need to support that claim.

basically, all the historic justifications of monarchy have been completely undermined and demolished. all that is left is "we've had monarchs for a long time", which by itself isn't a justification for anything.

basically, all the historic justifications of monarchy have been completely undermined and demolished. all that is left is "we've had monarchs for a long time", which by itself isn't a justification for anything.

"They're amusing" is the most recent development in the justification of monarchs. But their authority has been undermined since Hobbes showed that authority to govern derives not from God, but from the consent of the people (even if he drew the wrong conclusions about the best form of government).

"They're amusing" is the most recent development in the justification of monarchs.

and that's probably the best one yet

Freedom isn't free. You may think it is, but it isn't.

What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had.
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom.
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little pussy
'Cause the only reason that you're here.
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a have to hook'in fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

Ah, AP US History. What a great class. Though I only got a 3 on the college board test...

My answer: Yes.

I only got a 3 on the college board test...

My answer: Yes.

i think i may have spotted the problem

is it self-determination if the country is founded by the other?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be? Royal authority was interfering with the self-governing institutions of the colonies.

iirc, the 13 colonies paid the lowest taxes of anywhere in the british empire. and the revolution, as i understand it, started out of anger at paying taxes to the british crown.

Whatever the level of taxation, if it is unjustly imposed it is unacceptable.