NationStates Jolt Archive

The total tax burden imposed on the American colonies by the British Empire, distinct from the colonial governments' taxation, was 1% of national income for the north and 2.5% of national income for the south. Now, the expenditures of the United States at all levels consume about 50% of national income. Supposedly, we fought against taxation without representation; but was it really worth fighting for the chance to inflict it upon ourselves, and to do so far worse than could have possibly been imagined beforehand?

The war was fought so that rich white guys don't have to pay taxes.

Rich white guys don't have to pay taxes (offshore accounts! YAY!!!).

America wins. The people living there lose.

Whee!!! (http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-I_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg)

There was an American Revolution because the Massachusetts Bay Company, its parent corporation, The East India Company, and the British government acting in support of them, were a big frigging pain in the ass to the people who started and fought it.

Other people who joined/supported/did not oppose the revolution had other beefs, but for the most part it was that the established power was really annoying the people who became revolutionaries.

That's usually the way it works.

EDIT: This lists the reasons according to the people there at the time:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

EDIT EDIT: Just reread that doc again. My, my, some of those points sound recently familiar. Hm, hm, hm...

The total tax burden imposed on the American colonies by the British Empire, distinct from the colonial governments' taxation, was 1% of national income for the north and 2.5% of national income for the south. Now, the expenditures of the United States at all levels consume about 50% of national income. Supposedly, we fought against taxation without representation; but was it really worth fighting for the chance to inflict it upon ourselves, and to do so far worse than could have possibly been imagined beforehand?

Price of freedom, independence and what not?

Not to be a pain, but it's fairly well laid out here. (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html)

Next time you want to post a grumpy, trollish thread, please have the decency to do it on something where an argument can exist for about ten or twelve seconds.

Seem to me that a lot of that tax was being used to defend the colonies from the french. And if you'd rather be French than pay taxes then I'm sorry but you don't deserve to be in the British Empire. That's just the way it is.

Money, always comes down to money. Tell someone someone else is stealing money from them and they'll believe you.

The war was fought so that rich white guys don't have to pay taxes.

Rich white guys don't have to pay taxes (offshore accounts! YAY!!!).

America wins. The people living there lose.Whilst vastly oversimplified, this is incredibly accurate in my opinion.

In retrospect, looking back at the Declaration of Independence, it seems like we've violated practically every principle they seceded for in the first place.

Not to be a pain, but it's fairly well laid out here. (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html)

Next time you want to post a grumpy, trollish thread, please have the decency to do it on something where an argument can exist for about ten or twelve seconds.

So you get to be grumpy to me, but I can't be grumpy? Nice double-standard. :p And it's quite amusing to read the Declaration of Independence, especially on the economic bits, because the US government has done the same thing... and worse.

Taxes were incidental.

We did not want to be ruled by a monarch half a world away.

Actually, it's a little known fact that the entire concept of the American Revolution was to promote Benjamin Franklin's "bad boy" image, which was currently favored by young noblewoman.

So you get to be grumpy to me, but I can't be grumpy? Nice double-standard. :p .

You are the one who trolled and violated forum decency in the first place. I am well within my rights to complain about your actions.

Actually, it's a little known fact that the entire concept of the American Revolution was to promote Benjamin Franklin's "bad boy" image, which was currently favored by young noblewoman.

WIN

What the OP is pointing out, in a somewhat limited fashion, is that the American 'Revolution' as a historical event probably did not live up to the ideals that have been frequently ascribed to it, both by modern day commentators and contemporaries. But generally that is the way with historical events: for some reason, real life just refuses to match up to the abstract idealism of humanity.

You are the one who trolled and violated forum decency in the first place. I am well within my rights to complain about your actions.

Expressing one's opinion = trolling?

Expressing one's opinion = trolling?

This is a thread designed to elicit an extreme response. Thus, trolling in my opinion.

You are the one who trolled and violated forum decency in the first place. I am well within my rights to complain about your actions.

Well, you are certainly welcome to debate me if you want. But I don't see how illustrating the fact that the Revolution failed to live up to its principles trolling.

People were more passionate about having a representative republic which functioned according to clearly defined rules set down in print in a thing referred to as a constitution back then?
Then again, I hear it had something to do with tea. Perhaps that's why Americans drink coffee more often than not.

Taxes were incidental.

We did not want to be ruled by a monarch half a world away.

If one looks at the events in the years preceding the rebellion, then this view cuts little ice. Had the British Parliament left the issue of tax alone, it is unlikely (in my opinion) that the American colonies would have risen up against the motherland. As it was, a substantial section of American society (the book I have estimates it was as high as a third) remained loyal to the British throughout the course of the war.

If one looks at the events in the years preceding the rebellion, then this view cuts little ice. Had the British Parliament left the issue of tax alone, it is unlikely (in my opinion) that the American colonies would have risen up against the motherland. As it was, a substantial section of American society (the book I have estimates it was as high as a third) remained loyal to the British throughout the course of the war.

You would be correct in that 1/3 estimate

This is a thread designed to elicit an extreme response. Thus, trolling in my opinion.

It's not. It's meant to illustrate a frequently ignored fact.

If one looks at the events in the years preceding the rebellion, then this view cuts little ice. Had the British Parliament left the issue of tax alone, it is unlikely (in my opinion) that the American colonies would have risen up against the motherland. As it was, a substantial section of American society (the book I have estimates it was as high as a third) remained loyal to the British throughout the course of the war.

Don't forget the third that was apathetic. Only one third was patriotic.

Don't forget the third that was apathetic. Only one third was patriotic.

Also true. The rich white guy theory, as said earlier, is an oversimplification, but true nonetheless. The colonies did have representation in parliament. The revolutionaries were unsatisfied with that representation however

The total tax burden imposed on the American colonies by the British Empire, distinct from the colonial governments' taxation, was 1% of national income for the north and 2.5% of national income for the south. Now, the expenditures of the United States at all levels consume about 50% of national income. Supposedly, we fought against taxation without representation; but was it really worth fighting for the chance to inflict it upon ourselves, and to do so far worse than could have possibly been imagined beforehand?

i understand the american colonies had the lowest taxation of any of the british colonies at the time.

but that, and your oh-so subtly ironic point aside, i should guess you fought for self determination

Also true. The rich white guy theory, as said earlier, is an oversimplification, but true nonetheless. The colonies did have representation in parliament. The revolutionaries were unsatisfied with that representation however

I think the rich white guy theory may have quite a bit of truth. One of the reasons for the Constitution was to support the financial gains of people such as Alexander Hamilton who had much to gain from debt and land speculation, among other things.

I think the rich white guy theory may have quite a bit of truth. One of the reasons for the Constitution was to support the financial gains of people such as Alexander Hamilton who had much to gain from debt and land speculation, among other things.

Regardless of what motives each revolutionary had, I doubt that they could picture the 21st Century US as a natural progression of what they fought for. Of course, the events of the 20th Century have the most to do with that. Which of course came out of the conditions of the latter half of the 19th

Regardless of what motives each revolutionary had, I doubt that they could picture the 21st Century US as a natural progression of what they fought for. Of course, the events of the 20th Century have the most to do with that. Which of course came out of the conditions of the latter half of the 19th

Of course they couldn't. Even my grandparents were astonished to see what the world had come to.

Of course they couldn't. Even my grandparents were astonished to see what the world had come to.

Makes you wonder where we'll be in another hundred years, eh?

Taxes were incidental.

We did not want to be ruled by a monarch half a world away.

lol, you poor, gullible soul.

Makes you wonder where we'll be in another hundred years, eh?

Not really. :(

lol, you poor, gullible soul.

Hey, now, America has it's myths that some people like to adhere to. If you give something an altruistic spin, it makes it better. Kinda like how the defense of our freedoms somehow has to do with a patch of desert. But I'm not going to twist this thread into one dealing with that topic.

I think the rich white guy theory may have quite a bit of truth. One of the reasons for the Constitution was to support the financial gains of people such as Alexander Hamilton who had much to gain from debt and land speculation, among other things.

As well as the fact that the United States was falling apart as a country. The articles were entirely insufficient for providing a governmental framework, causing immense friction in the realms of domestic and foreign commerce. Further, trust in the government was being dramatically eroded by the inability to pay the war debts that it had accrued.

Further, the central Congress was essentially powerless, as it had no means to collect funds for the operation of the central government, and it was essentially crippled by an American version of the liberum veto that had weakened Poland so much that at this point in time it had essentially ceased to exist as a nation.

Further, the only support that undergirded the Articles was that of the popularity of the revolutionary movement, and the ability of the local militias to tamp down on insurrection fairly rapidly. It was not a strong or effective form of government, and needed replacement immediately.

Did The Constitution reflect some biases that occasionally favored certain elements of society? Yes, yes it did, but these biases were of a limited nature, and of secondary importance to the real reasons for it's drafting.

As well as the fact that the United States was falling apart as a country. The articles were entirely insufficient for providing a governmental framework, causing immense friction in the realms of domestic and foreign commerce. Further, trust in the government was being dramatically eroded by the inability to pay the war debts that it had accrued.

I had forgotten about the Articles of the Confederation. Foreign commerce of course being made the worse considering the US at the time was essentially 13 semi-autonomous republics each with their own currency

lol, you poor, gullible soul.

Put up or shut up.

and The lower classes ddint really sport the revolution until some crazy british officer decided to bring the Native Americans into the conflict, though by the Surrender at York town there where as many americans in the British Army as in Washingtons

and The lower classes ddint really sport the revolution until some crazy british officer decided to bring the Native Americans into the conflict, though by the Surrender at York town there where as many americans in the British Army as in Washingtons

If I recall correctly, it's usually the upper and middle classes who start revolutions and rebellions, basically the people who have the time and the education to come up with the ideals behind it, and then the lower classes join in later anyhow.

The total tax burden imposed on the American colonies by the British Empire, distinct from the colonial governments' taxation, was 1% of national income for the north and 2.5% of national income for the south. Now, the expenditures of the United States at all levels consume about 50% of national income. Supposedly, we fought against taxation without representation; but was it really worth fighting for the chance to inflict it upon ourselves, and to do so far worse than could have possibly been imagined beforehand?

We have taxation WITH representation now. That is a huge difference.


Well, unless you live in Washington DC. Then you taxation without representation.

Seem to me that a lot of that tax was being used to defend the colonies from the french. And if you'd rather be French than pay taxes then I'm sorry but you don't deserve to be in the British Empire. That's just the way it is.

We didn't break off just because of taxes. It was because we were given no say in the taxes. We were not allowed to send representatives to parliament.
The king did not let us have a say in what laws were made to govern ourselves. We were treated as though we had no rights.
That is the reason for the US war of independence.

It was not taxes that caused the war. It was long train of abuses and revocation of rights.

As Mr. Jefferson himself wrote in that same document:
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

We have taxation WITH representation now. That is a huge difference.


Well, unless you live in Washington DC. Then you taxation without representation.

The colonies were represented in parliament. The representation they were given though was distant and not elected by the colonists.

In retrospect, looking back at the Declaration of Independence, it seems like we've violated practically every principle they seceded for in the first place.

We broke away because King George was violating our rights and now we have President George violating our rights.

The irony????

Taxes were incidental.

We did not want to be ruled by a monarch half a world away.

That's why colonists on the moon and on Mars are not going to be willing to be ruled from earth which will be much further away than the colonies were from Britain.

That's why colonists on the moon and on Mars are not going to be willing to be ruled from earth which will be much further away than the colonies were from Britain.

Self-sufficiency might put a kink in their separatist plans though

Regardless of what motives each revolutionary had, I doubt that they could picture the 21st Century US as a natural progression of what they fought for. Of course, the events of the 20th Century have the most to do with that. Which of course came out of the conditions of the latter half of the 19th

They'd be rolling over in their graves.

They'd be rolling over in their graves.

I wouldn't be so sure.

We're still a completely independent nation, the strongest and most prosperous in the world, still in full (even more full, in many cases) possession of individual liberty.

We're still doing well on all the big points, thought certain people might disgaree about economics or things like that.

The important part though is that the debate they would be entering would actually be going on, which it is.

Self-sufficiency might put a kink in their separatist plans though

Not really because we have precedent here on earth. Most countries on earth are not self sufficient. They rely on other countries for the importation of food and water and stuff. Does that mean they don't have the right to be independent states?

Not really because we have precedent here on earth. Most countries on earth are not self sufficient. They rely on other countries for the importation of food and water and stuff. Does that mean they don't have the right to be independent states?

It was meant to be a humorous response, but you're right. Say an American colony cut itself of, it would recieve recognition from another nation and probably get whatever they needed from them.

It was meant to be a humorous response, but you're right. Say an American colony cut itself of, it would recieve recognition from another nation and probably get whatever they needed from them.

I think nearly everyone would be baffled as to how to treat it. We'd all be like "whazzat? How does we's classify this fell beastie?" when trying to figure out how to deal with it. Would they be able to claim all of Mars, or would they be limited to their little inhabited area? Who knows! Craaaaaaziness!

We didn't break off just because of taxes. It was because we were given no say in the taxes. We were not allowed to send representatives to parliament.
The king did not let us have a say in what laws were made to govern ourselves. We were treated as though we had no rights.
That is the reason for the US war of independence.

It was not taxes that caused the war. It was long train of abuses and revocation of rights.


When you look at the voting rights for British citizens back then , we had about as much as the residents of the 13 colonies.
Rotten boroughs, and fat tory landlords who got made MP when they reached a certain weight.
But a previous poster was correct in stating that Boston where the revolution began had the lowest rate of taxation in the British empire.
Pretty ironic that :p

We have taxation WITH representation now. That is a huge difference.

I'd rather never vote again and pay 2.5% of my income than pay half of my income for the privilege of putting an X in a box every year.

As well as the fact that the United States was falling apart as a country. The articles were entirely insufficient for providing a governmental framework, causing immense friction in the realms of domestic and foreign commerce. Further, trust in the government was being dramatically eroded by the inability to pay the war debts that it had accrued.

Further, the central Congress was essentially powerless, as it had no means to collect funds for the operation of the central government, and it was essentially crippled by an American version of the liberum veto that had weakened Poland so much that at this point in time it had essentially ceased to exist as a nation.

Further, the only support that undergirded the Articles was that of the popularity of the revolutionary movement, and the ability of the local militias to tamp down on insurrection fairly rapidly. It was not a strong or effective form of government, and needed replacement immediately.

Did The Constitution reflect some biases that occasionally favored certain elements of society? Yes, yes it did, but these biases were of a limited nature, and of secondary importance to the real reasons for it's drafting.

Well, actually, in 1788, the year that the Constitution was ratified, the economy had already begun to recover. The woes of the post-war economy were basically just the hang-over of the conflict, due to A.) Inflation, and B.) Debt. With the rest of the world using specie and Americans using depreciating paper money, it was very difficult to import any capital or consumer goods to the economy. Not to mention that business had to adapt from wartime regulation to peace, British trade barriers, and the debts incurred and capital lost due to the war. It, like any other hang-over, had to be dealt with by suffering for a time, paying your debts, and in the case of inflation having people turn their backs upon fiat currency and instead using sound money.

But instead, people like Alexander Hamilton wanted to support vested interests such as the manufacturers. They had tried to secure special anti-competitive privileges for themselves at the state legislatures, but these had failed since the states were so economically dependent upon each other. (In fact, Hamilton complained in the Federalist No. 12 that without a central government the states would not be able to maintain their tariffs against one another and superior British goods would out-compete American industry. This was the case in the South which had much lower tariffs that were driving uncompetitive Northern businesses out of business.)

Also, the states were not giving money to the central government because they were dicking around with it and using it fund a massive bureaucracy. This is evident in that their demands far exceeded what was necessary to pay the debt. As an individual example, why give money to someone for a 12 step program when you know they're just going to buy a ton of alcohol with it? Not to mention that wealthy speculators, who had bought the rapidly depreciating debt instruments, had a very strong interest in having a strong central state that could boost up the value of their assets. (Hamilton also confirms this in his correspondence, that the national debt would be "a blessing", since it would "(increase) the number of ligaments between the government and the interests of individuals." I.e., help the speculators.) The states would have handled the debt on their own, as New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland had assumed a full third of the debt on their own.

Also, Shay's rebellion was essentially a rebellion against these same speculators, who were being enriched from state governments heavily taxing farmers to enrich the speculators for the face value of their debt, not its depreciated value. Quite honestly, they were fighting in the spirit of the American Revolution, and those who misconstrued their acts of self-defense as treachery were more in common with George III's government. And, one of the earliest things done under the national government was the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, again to enrich speculators at the cost of ordinary people.

The Constitution is not the savior that so many conflate it as. It has always been a tool of nationalism to help politically-tied special interests. And that is why we have a government that makes George III's system look benign, and made the American Revolution a hollow victory.

I think nearly everyone would be baffled as to how to treat it. We'd all be like "whazzat? How does we's classify this fell beastie?" when trying to figure out how to deal with it. Would they be able to claim all of Mars, or would they be limited to their little inhabited area? Who knows! Craaaaaaziness!

HAHAHAHAHA That would be a different kind of thing to deal with, but I imagine that there would be different colonies from different nations on the same planet and unless they likewise rebelled the separatist colony would only be able to claim its own territory. Otherwise people would have even more of a problem with it

....... still in full (even more full, in many cases) possession of individual liberty.

Oh yeah .. keep believing it dude

Greill you are not going to make everyone agree to make you king...

It's not going to happen.
Give it up.

Just think of it, if you Americans would have not had a Revolution, like my country and all the other former colonies, you would eventually have been given Federation and democracy/independence, you just should have been more patient, then you wouldn't have lost all those lives etc. I mean just think of it, if you didn't have it, American cops right now might not have guns -and might not need them, you'd have national healthcare, and even better - drink tea and play cricket.

The total tax burden imposed on the American colonies by the British Empire, distinct from the colonial governments' taxation, was 1% of national income for the north and 2.5% of national income for the south. Now, the expenditures of the United States at all levels consume about 50% of national income. Supposedly, we fought against taxation without representation; but was it really worth fighting for the chance to inflict it upon ourselves, and to do so far worse than could have possibly been imagined beforehand?
Good question. Something happened last week that shouldn't have, and i am doing what i can to catch the exact quote, about representation ...

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/hein_and_taxpayer_standing.php

Just think of it, if you Americans would have not had a Revolution, like my country and all the other former colonies, you would eventually have been given Federation and democracy/independence, you just should have been more patient, then you wouldn't have lost all those lives etc. I mean just think of it, if you didn't have it, American cops right now might not have guns -and might not need them, you'd have national healthcare, and even better - drink tea and play cricket.

Thats EXACTLY why I'm glad we had a revolution

Oh yeah .. keep believing it dude

Put up or shut up.

Just think of it, if you Americans would have not had a Revolution, like my country and all the other former colonies, you would eventually have been given Federation and democracy/independence, you just should have been more patient, then you wouldn't have lost all those lives etc. I mean just think of it, if you didn't have it, American cops right now might not have guns -and might not need them, you'd have national healthcare, and even better - drink tea and play cricket.

Alright, back to the topic. The revolution was predominantly about taxes, it was not until later that the myth that the Revolution was against a power mad King came about (indeed, in the early days of the revolution, George Washington used to make toasts to King George III and insisted his problem was with the British Parliament).

However, if you look at it, the British Parliament was faced with a problem; either they tax their own people, with its own consequences, for the defence of an ever expanding Empire, or you tax the colonies. The British Parliament decided to tax the colonies to spread the defence burden around, unfortunately, like most people, the Colonists could not stand paying taxes for something that they were benefitting from.

What would be an interesting what if is what if the Colonists had not rebelled against the British Government. Certainly, things would be much different today. America would probably be using the Westminster System, and that would mean that President Bush may not have been able to go to the lengths that he has, then of course there are all the other things.

I have to say, I find the way people talk about the American revolution very bizarre. After all these people where British people rebelling against being governed by the British goverment. There's no "we" there's no "our" for an American talking about these people. These weren't a people artificially labelled as British tied down by the chains of imperialistic repression but fated to one day break free and to declare their glorious nation as their own. These were a load Britons who decided they preferred Virginia or Boston to Hertfordshire or Glasgow or wherever and then decided "You know what? Forget London, we don't need it any more!"

Notice how the names of all the founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc are all British names? How they all spoke English when denouncing the tyranny of the British government? "Give me liberty or give me death" See, these words might work for someone fighting in a real war of independence against a foreign imperial power, like the Mau Mau uprising for example. But when your using them to fight against your own country, you're just being a bit of a twat.

No, I'm not at all bitter ;)

Just think of it, if you Americans would have not had a Revolution, like my country and all the other former colonies, you would eventually have been given Federation and democracy/independence, you just should have been more patient, then you wouldn't have lost all those lives etc. I mean just think of it, if you didn't have it, American cops right now might not have guns -and might not need them, you'd have national healthcare, and even better - drink tea and play cricket.

You can't say that for sure of course. For all we know these great things that exist in Europe that we don't have here could be due to the fact that the European Empires crumbled. If the British Empire didn't start losing places like India and Ireland and getting involved in warfare with other empires, there might not have been any impetus to make these improvements in the lives of the subjects of the realm. And you can't ignore the rise of Communism. You give a little socialism here and there and the Crowned Heads of Europe won't have to worry about a sea of red banners outside their palaces. Don't get me wrong, I like how Europe is more than the US, but our revolution and other revolutions played a part in that. And I'll pass on the tea and cricket. I much prefer coffee and baseball.

Wanting freedom from an unreasonable and distant monarch is probably the best answer. The illusion of self-government that had kept the people relatively satisified and peaceful since the beginning was shown to be a farce when George III kept revoking powers, dissolving the local government, adding taxes without notice, firing judges without notice who displeased him for some reason, and punishing dissent with cruelty, generally. The whole Enlightenment anti-monarch sentiment and growing population made the idea of war popular, and people went with it, not surprisingly. :) Much to our ultimate benefit, I think! :p

Greill you are not going to make everyone agree to make you king...

It's not going to happen.
Give it up.

I can always dream, can't I? :D

Put up or shut up.

LOFL. You just challenged me to a fight on the internet.

I think you get the "Internet is Serious Business" Award.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/23/Seriously.png

LOFL. You just challenged me to a fight on the internet.

I think you get the "Internet is Serious Business" Award.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/23/Seriously.png

How profound :rolleyes:

You posted something stupid, were told to put up or shut up, and instead just posted something else stupid.

Back to square one.

Put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up.

Correction: you've challenged two people to a fight on one thread.

You wouldn't happen to be related to this guy (http://wowseriousbusiness.ytmnd.com/), now, would you? ;)

Correction: you've challenged two people to a fight on one thread.

You wouldn't happen to be related to this guy (http://wowseriousbusiness.ytmnd.com/), now, would you? ;)

Two people posted stupid things, two people got the same instructions, one came back to post more stupid things, the other shut up.

One has a problem with reading comprehension.

Two people posted stupid things, two people got the same instructions, one came back to post more stupid things, the other shut up.

One has a problem with reading comprehension.

Instructions? Huh, I was not aware that you became a mod.


Or could it be...

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/EmperorCat.jpg

You just challenged me to a fight on the internet.

Correction: you've challenged two people to a fight on one thread.


Again, one has a problem with reading comprehension.

Some resources:

http://www.how-to-study.com/Reading%20Comprehension.htm
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/lesson.html
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/200/reading/
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm


Good luck!

Again, one has a problem with reading comprehension.

Some resources:

http://www.how-to-study.com/Reading%20Comprehension.htm
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/lesson.html
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/200/reading/
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm


Good luck!

Wow. Repeating the same insult again. You really burned me.

I tell you what sucks with the whole deal: I can't get radio four in the car. :mad:

Instructions? Huh, I was not aware that you became a mod.


Or could it be...


Would've been funnier if the cat was playing with thread, as they often do. :p

Anyway, this whole argument is enough to make the eyes ache. Maybe a new thread might be better for you two? ;)

Wow. Repeating the same insult again. You really burned me.

A lot of people have problems with reading comprehension.

If you weren't aware what it is, it is where a person reads something, but doesn't understand what it means, what the writer was trying to say.

Most discussion forums would have fewer than one fourth of the posts they do if people didn't have problems with reading comprehension.

Don't know if you knew that or not.

Would've been funnier if the cat was playing with thread, as they often do. :p
Curse you, lack of foresight and comedy bones!

Yeah, that would be a lot funnier. Dammit. :(
Anyway, this whole argument is enough to make the eyes ache. Maybe a new thread might be better for you two? ;)
Meh, I'm assuming he'll give up, after that wicked burn I gave him. ;)

But, yeah, I intend to stop...

Would've been funnier if the cat was playing with thread, as they often do. :p

Anyway, this whole argument is enough to make the eyes ache. Maybe a new thread might be better for you two? ;)

It's not really an argument, which is where people do a point-counterpoint thing.

This has been a lengthy exercise in trying to correct someone who has, as they say, - missed - the point, so that a real argument can start up.

Don't forget the third that was apathetic. Only one third was patriotic.
I was of the understanding that it was more like 20% were "patriots"?

I was of the understanding that it was more like 20% were "patriots"?

I heard a third. I could be wrong.

Wow. Repeating the same insult again. You really burned me.

You can cry on my shoulder if you want.

I was of the understanding that it was more like 20% were "patriots"?

It probably was about 20% loyalist, 20% patriot and 60% apathetic, but I imagine for convince sake, and because the apathetic people had no effect on the outcome, it's just normally divided into thirds.

Saying that, I don't think a Canadian should be casting aspersions on anyones loyalty to the mother country.

Taxes were incidental.

We did not want to be ruled by a monarch half a world away.

Not quite. They simply wanted home rule. Basically, self governship. Most, if not all, of the key players would have more than gladly submitted to British rule had Georgie allowed self rule back to the colonies(Which they technically had been given due to negligence for around 100 years-It wasn't officially self rule, just the Monarchs didn't worry about it, more or less).

Hell, some of King George's advisers had warned him that what would happen would be exactly what happened-push a few pence taxes on the colonists(Hell, most colonials weren't even affected at all by the levied taxes), take away self rule bit by bit, and the colonials will react in none to happy ways. Basically, he was told to let them have their self rule. It was making Britain money on trade goods, the colonies were prospering under the mutually beneficial negligence of home rule, and pushing for stronger control would have a backlash.

More or less.

Not quite. They simply wanted home rule. Basically, self governship. Most, if not all, of the key players would have more than gladly submitted to British rule had Georgie allowed self rule back to the colonies(Which they technically had been given due to negligence for around 100 years-It wasn't officially self rule, just the Monarchs didn't worry about it, more or less).

Hell, some of King George's advisers had warned him that what would happen would be exactly what happened-push a few pence taxes on the colonists(Hell, most colonials weren't even affected at all by the levied taxes), take away self rule bit by bit, and the colonials will react in none to happy ways. Basically, he was told to let them have their self rule. It was making Britain money on trade goods, the colonies were prospering under the mutually beneficial negligence of home rule, and pushing for stronger control would have a backlash.

More or less.

So what you're saying is that they wanted self rule, rather than to be ruled by a monarch (with all the autocracy, &c, that that entails) half a world away?

It probably was about 20% loyalist, 20% patriot and 60% apathetic, but I imagine for convince sake, and because the apathetic people had no effect on the outcome, it's just normally divided into thirds.

Saying that, I don't think a Canadian should be casting aspersions on anyones loyalty to the mother country.

Actually, there was a sizable population of those who didn't even know that the Revolutionary war was going on. And it only makes sense. People were spread out, especially in the South, where most of the "towns" were villages of no more than a hundred or so people. Information traveled slowly, nobody came to these towns, and when the British armies came, the townsfolk thought that there was a parade going on. There are accounts of many towns being amazed that an actual war was occurring at the time.

So what you're saying is that they wanted self rule, rather than to be ruled by a monarch (with all the autocracy, &c, that that entails) half a world away?

I think that what he means is that the colonists would gladly have remained part of the Empire and recognized George III as their king, but maintained control over their own governance. Not complete independence, but semi-autonomy. Kinda like Scotland within the UK

EDIT---
or perhaps more aptly, Canada, which still recognizes Queen Elizabeth as the head of State

So what you're saying is that they wanted self rule, rather than to be ruled by a monarch (with all the autocracy, &c, that that entails) half a world away?

Technically.

They were willing to submit to the British crown, and willing to follow British law, basically. However, they just preferred that they govern themselves locally, but remain part of the British empire(As it was mutually beneficial to do so).

Really, only very few, very rich, colonists were affected, at all, by the Brits levying taxes, and various laws regarding trade.

They had no problem at all with the autocracy. Most of the key leaders(And subsequently the rest of revolutionaries) were willing to accept King George as their monarch had he simply allowed them to more or less govern themselves(Not complete rule, but more control with less British Control than under George-which wasn't even that much until the Coercive Acts).

I think that what he means is that the colonists would gladly have remained part of the Empire and recognized George III as their king, but maintained control over their own governance. Not complete independence, but semi-autonomy. Kinda like Scotland within the UK

Nail on head. Hit it.

Nail on head. Hit it.

Being an Irishman, I'm familiar with the nuance of the term, Home Rule

Being an Irishman, I'm familiar with the nuance of the term, Home Rule

Er, aren't you from Boston?

Er, aren't you from Boston?

Yes. But I am a dual citizen. My father is from Ireland, my mother from Boston. I was born and raised here in Boston, but make frequent trips back to Ireland

Yes. But I am a dual citizen. My father is from Ireland, my mother from Boston. I was born and raised here in Boston, but make frequent trips back to Ireland

I suppose its too much to hope that you are an orangeman then?

I suppose its too much to hope that you are an orangeman then?

No I am not. hehehe. I am actually named after an Irish revolutionary and was raised Catholic.

No I am not. hehehe. I am actually named after an Irish revolutionary and was raised Catholic.

Good boy. :D

Wait, which revolutionary?

Good boy. :D

Wait, which revolutionary?

EDIT--- perhaps, rather than giving my name out, I'll just say that he was just a lad of 18 summers

Well, actually, in 1788, the year that the Constitution was ratified, the economy had already begun to recover. The woes of the post-war economy were basically just the hang-over of the conflict, due to A.) Inflation, and B.) Debt. With the rest of the world using specie and Americans using depreciating paper money, it was very difficult to import any capital or consumer goods to the economy. Not to mention that business had to adapt from wartime regulation to peace, British trade barriers, and the debts incurred and capital lost due to the war. It, like any other hang-over, had to be dealt with by suffering for a time, paying your debts, and in the case of inflation having people turn their backs upon fiat currency and instead using sound money.

But instead, people like Alexander Hamilton wanted to support vested interests such as the manufacturers. They had tried to secure special anti-competitive privileges for themselves at the state legislatures, but these had failed since the states were so economically dependent upon each other. (In fact, Hamilton complained in the Federalist No. 12 that without a central government the states would not be able to maintain their tariffs against one another and superior British goods would out-compete American industry. This was the case in the South which had much lower tariffs that were driving uncompetitive Northern businesses out of business.)

Also, the states were not giving money to the central government because they were dicking around with it and using it fund a massive bureaucracy. This is evident in that their demands far exceeded what was necessary to pay the debt. As an individual example, why give money to someone for a 12 step program when you know they're just going to buy a ton of alcohol with it? Not to mention that wealthy speculators, who had bought the rapidly depreciating debt instruments, had a very strong interest in having a strong central state that could boost up the value of their assets. (Hamilton also confirms this in his correspondence, that the national debt would be "a blessing", since it would "(increase) the number of ligaments between the government and the interests of individuals." I.e., help the speculators.) The states would have handled the debt on their own, as New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland had assumed a full third of the debt on their own.

Also, Shay's rebellion was essentially a rebellion against these same speculators, who were being enriched from state governments heavily taxing farmers to enrich the speculators for the face value of their debt, not its depreciated value. Quite honestly, they were fighting in the spirit of the American Revolution, and those who misconstrued their acts of self-defense as treachery were more in common with George III's government. And, one of the earliest things done under the national government was the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, again to enrich speculators at the cost of ordinary people.

The Constitution is not the savior that so many conflate it as. It has always been a tool of nationalism to help politically-tied special interests. And that is why we have a government that makes George III's system look benign, and made the American Revolution a hollow victory.

I'd written a rather lucid and awesome response, only to have my computer crash, and I don't feel like doing it again, so here are the points:

-Influence issues

--The Constitution that we have today is the result of a compromise, primarily between the moderate Federalists and the moderate anti-Federalists. While there were sops thrown to those on the extremes, these were few and far between.
--The Hamiltonian Plan at the Philadelphia Convention was radically different from the Compromise that was eventually ratified. It was so soundly defeated that Hamilton, for a time, did not participate in the Convention out of frustration.

-Debt issues

--The states were NOT paying back the war debt that they had incurred, which is precisely why speculators were purchasing from individuals at less than face value. Quite simply, if the states were paying back, this problem would never had existed in the first place
--Shays Rebellion proved that reforms of the aggregate national debt had to be made.
--While some benefited financially from the Constitution over the Articles, it is fairly clear that this is due to

-Foreign Affairs and Trade

--Economic growth had begun after the war because of the temporary upsurge that replacement of lost capital permitted. This is unlikely to have continued because of the disjointed and ineffectual trade and monetary policies that the states had. Growth would have eventually been so hobbled that economic collapse would have been inevitable.
--The improvements made in centralizing control over foreign affairs and trade in the Constitution are immense and obvious, Jefferson's abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade comes to mind. We need little more than reference the case of the Amistad to provide evidence of the benefits of this part.

-Failure of the States to fund the Central Congress under the Articles

--Not only are your claims that the Central Congress was trying to enact a sprawling bureaucracy false, but from the start it was underfunded. The Central Congress did not even have enough money to fund the military, let alone that much stuff. The States were faced with their own debt and fiscal crises, strange governmental systems (look at the bizarre oligarchy that had been established in PA) and the need to fund their own services to their own constituents. The Central Congress came in second place in the opinions of the state governments.
--Shays rebellion showed the weakness of the Central Congress, in that not only was it unable to act, but it was also unable to provide the military with sufficient resources and manpower to properly defend the few arsenals it had. Shay could have taken at least one federal arsenal with little more than a scuffle, at least once. This was because there was insufficient manpower provided to that installation by the government due to budget restrictions.

And, I'm going to bed, I might or might not finish this tomorrow.

At anyrate, that's all a bit off topic. But I think that bringing up the colonists being in favor of Home Rule if it were granted/maintained to be an interesting one. I hadn't heard that but considering that the revolution didn't have the support that one would be lead to think, it would make sense.

Stop beating up on this guy. That wasn't trolling. Have you forgotten trolling is saying something for the INTENT of angering others/start a senseless argument? In fact, I agree with him. Grow some balls.

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 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 Legislature.

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 Legislaton:

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 Benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond the 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 in 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 Powers 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 complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and 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 among 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.



There was a little bit more than just "taxation."

There was a little bit more than just "taxation."

No kidding. :p I can forgive foreigners for advocating some misshapen marxist revision they heard on the radio or someplace, since from what I've heard they don't generally study it in school even in England or sometimes Canada. But it's pretty sad when locals won't even fairly look at the issues of that period, and realize that economics wasn't even the tip of the iceberg.

Rich white guys don't have to pay taxes (offshore accounts! YAY!!!).Speaking as a rich white guy, allow me to say that offshore accounts and banking games don't hold a candle to what you can do LEGALLY through use of THE 'C' CORPORATION (as opposed to the 's' corporation).

Most of the middle class has already noticed that they pay all of the taxes. What they usually don't realize is HOW. The rich pay nothing because they don't own anything on paper. When the rich invest, it's done under the name of what most people call a holding corporation. All they own is the corporation which is an asset, not income.

The magic lies in the fact that people are taxed on INCOME while c corporations are taxed on PROFIT. The difference is subtle but the implications are huge. People get money, pay taxes, then spend/save/whatever. By only paying taxed on profits, when a company gets money, it spends first and ONLY PAYS TAXES ON MONEY LEFT OVER AFTER EXPENDITURES.

You form a c corporation yourself, as the sole shareholder, you can make up any rules you want. So, you write into the company bylaws that the 'CEO' (you) gets medical insurance, childcare, a 'company car', and the 'board of directors' (you and your golf buddies) has an annual meeting in some tropical country every year. What you've effectively done is bought yourself insurance, daycare for your kid, a new car, and a vacation to Hawaii with money that WAS NOT TAXED AT ANY POINT. Guess what? It's totally legal.

"OMG offshore accounts" is just something people say when they don't understand how so-called rich white guys actually pull it off. Behold the true power of the corporation.

Just think of it, if you Americans would have not had a Revolution, like my country and all the other former colonies, you would eventually have been given Federation and democracy/independence, you just should have been more patient, then you wouldn't have lost all those lives etc. I mean just think of it, if you didn't have it, American cops right now might not have guns -and might not need them, you'd have national healthcare, and even better - drink tea and play cricket.

The UK nor any of its commonwealth's had national health care until after WWII, when the welfare state Idea was implemented.


Besides, we'd still have God save the queen as our anthem, and still have to haver her on our currency.

I think that what he means is that the colonists would gladly have remained part of the Empire and recognized George III as their king, but maintained control over their own governance. Not complete independence, but semi-autonomy. Kinda like Scotland within the UK

EDIT---
or perhaps more aptly, Canada, which still recognizes Queen Elizabeth as the head of State

Probably a better description would have been that America would have probably become a Dominion; had rule over themselves and could govern their internal affairs, while Westminster could still veto laws and determine foreign policy.

In terms of this comment

There was a little bit more than just "taxation."

That was the barrel of gunpowder so to speak. Taxation was the spark that lit that barrel of gunpowder

Also, for anyone assuming that George III could do much, you forget that Parliament by this stage had a great deal of power; for anything to happen, it had to be agreed to by the House of Commons, then the House of Lords and only then could the King do anything. It was Parliament that decided that tax should be imposed on the colonies, not George III - he simply rubber stamped it.

Also, remember that the last British monarch to veto legislation was Queen Anne in the early 18th Century. Quite a remarkable record, considering that more than half of the U.S. Presidents have vetoed legislation

The UK nor any of its commonwealth's had national health care until after WWII, when the welfare state Idea was implemented.


Besides, we'd still have God save the queen as our anthem, and still have to haver her on our currency.

No, for example my country Australia got rid of God Save the Queen for our own anthem a while ago now, we still have the Queen on our coins, but honestly who cares, we got our independence peacefully and with no economic cost or war like America did.

The UK nor any of its commonwealth's had national health care until after WWII, when the welfare state Idea was implemented.It doesn't matter because NHS is a joke anyway. I've been there, lived the horror story first hand, and happy to be back home. For any of my fellow Americans here who think social healthcare is such a swell idea, let me ask you something. Do you really want to live in a place where you need to make an appointment a WEEK in advance for non-emergencies? When I spent a few months in St. Andrews, most people I met there never went to the doctor's because by the time they got an appointment, whatever they had had long since run its course.

EDIT:
Also, from conversations with people I met over there who I still talk to who work in NHS. It's nearly bankrupt. Only a fool relies on the government to be mommy. It's the same with Social Security here. The government has made promises that it cannot possibly afford to ever keep. By 2010, all the boomers who planned to rely on Uncle Sam to foot the bill for their retirement are in for a blaring wakeup call and it's going to be too late for them when they realize they're going to need to keep working until they day they die because they didn't grow up and take their finances into their own hands.

The industrial age and its notions of pension and welfare is DEAD.

No, for example my country Australia got rid of God Save the Queen for our own anthem a while ago now, we still have the Queen on our coins, but honestly who cares, we got our independence peacefully and with no economic cost or war like America did.


That might not have even happened if the USA didn't rebel against the British, as the loss of the NA colonies majorly put back the British conquest of the world.

What about India, they essentially had to fight for independence, not war, but with protests, and they probably would still be a colony if they didn't protest.

It doesn't matter because NHS is a joke anyway. I've been there, lived the horror story first hand, and happy to be back home. For any of my fellow Americans here who think social healthcare is such a swell idea, let me ask you something. Do you really want to live in a place where you need to make an appointment a WEEK in advance for non-emergencies? When I spent a few months in St. Andrews, most people I met there never went to the doctor's because by the time they got an appointment, whatever they had had long since run its course.

EDIT:
Also, from conversations with people I met over there who I still talk to who work in NHS. It's nearly bankrupt. Only a fool relies on the government to be mommy. It's the same with Social Security here. The government has made promises that it cannot possibly afford to ever keep. By 2010, all the boomers who planned to rely on Uncle Sam to foot the bill for their retirement are in for a blaring wakeup call and it's going to be too late for them when they realize they're going to need to keep working until they day they die because they didn't grow up and take their finances into their own hands.

The industrial age and its notions of pension and welfare is DEAD.


The NHS is not a joke - I and many other Brits owe our lives and our wellbeing to it.

If you are ill with something that will run it's course before you see a doctor, you didn't need to see a doctor anyway and shouldn't be wasting their time.

-snip-

You understand the way money works too well to be on these forum. Leave before frustration destroys your sanity.

That might not have even happened if the USA didn't rebel against the British, as the loss of the NA colonies majorly put back the British conquest of the world.

What about India, they essentially had to fight for independence, not war, but with protests, and they probably would still be a colony if they didn't protest.

I don't think that the American Revolution majorly put back the British conquest of the world; I personally think it helped it. Without the Revolution, Australia would never have become a British colony, and therefore by extension, neither would New Zealand. With those two colonies, possession of the Cape became more critical then ever, so South Africa was conquered, and so on.

Also, it was suggested that India become a Dominion in the 1930s (becoming a Dominion was virtually the last step prior to independence), however, that option was declined. I highly doubt that India would have remained a colony, even without the protests - after the Second World War, the British Empire was unviable.

Furthermore, modern day America would not be required to use God Save the Queen or have the Queen on its coinage. Commonwealth Realms essentially get all the benefits without many of the costs.

Chances also are that Canada and America (most likely America would have been the Oregon Colony, Louisiana Territory and the original Colonies) would have been one country.

I don't think that the American Revolution majorly put back the British conquest of the world; I personally think it helped it. Without the Revolution, Australia would never have become a British colony, and therefore by extension, neither would New Zealand. With those two colonies, possession of the Cape became more critical then ever, so South Africa was conquered, and so on.

Also, it was suggested that India become a Dominion in the 1930s (becoming a Dominion was virtually the last step prior to independence), however, that option was declined. I highly doubt that India would have remained a colony, even without the protests - after the Second World War, the British Empire was unviable.

Furthermore, modern day America would not be required to use God Save the Queen or have the Queen on its coinage. Commonwealth Realms essentially get all the benefits without many of the costs.

Chances also are that Canada and America (most likely America would have been the Oregon Colony, Louisiana Territory and the original Colonies) would have been one country.

You are quite right. The American Declaration of Independence did not set back British imperialism - it simply redirected it. The British started paying far more attention to India.

If there were ideals behind it (other than profit) then the US was supposed to become what Britain had failed to be. The Empire/Country of Liberty, free, fair, etc etc. In reality the US has become what Britain actually was.

There was a little bit more than just "taxation."The vast majority of those greivences occured only after fighting had broken out.

It was also preceded by political manuevering, of John Adams, around the Olive Branch Petition that would have made Caesar jealous.

The main sources discontent that I know of are -

- The Navigation Acts, imposition of taxes and various trade regulations. Includes the Molasses act of 1733.

- Royal Proclamation of 1763, and the creation of the Proclamation line. Colonists now had to buy land from the Indians rather than take it by force. This increased the cost of colonisation for settlers, but decreased the costs of defending the colonies from less hostile Indians. I'd be very surprised if this is on the syllabus in American schools.

- The Stamp Act of 1765, required a tax for any document to become legally binding. It was extremely unpopular and led to the King replacing the Prime Minister a year after the Act was enacted. The new Prime Minister repealed the act almost immediately.

- The Coercive Acts or the 'Intolerable Acts'. These were a response to the Boston Tea Party. They effectively closed the port of Boston, suspended legislative election in Massachusetts, and prevented British soldiers being tried in Massachusetts due to the possible bias of the local populace. A fourth act also required all 13 colonies to provide for the basic daily needs of the standing armies that protected them from the Indians and the French.

The reason why the 3 of 4 acts were directed only at Massachusetts was because all custom duties had been repealed, with the exception of that on tea. The custom duty on tea had been kept so as to protect the right of the British Crown to impose taxes. So to protest at the last remaining tax on the colonies was seen as greatly disrespectful.

- And finally, the rejection of the Olive Branch petition. This was an attempt to resolve the differences between the Colonies and the Crown peacefully. John Adams and others were opposed to this attempt as the viewed armed conflict as inevitable. The reason the Crown rejected the petition was because they intercepted a letter of John Adams expressing such opinions and even that the colonies should have already raised a navy and captured British officials. This caused the Crown to believe that the Olive Branch Petition was insincere, and thus they rejected it.

John Adam used the rejection to further the Republican cause by stating the Crown had no interest in peace, when it was he who had had no intention of peace and was desirous of war.

I'd written a rather lucid and awesome response, only to have my computer crash, and I don't feel like doing it again, so here are the points:

If you say so.

-Influence issues

--The Constitution that we have today is the result of a compromise, primarily between the moderate Federalists and the moderate anti-Federalists. While there were sops thrown to those on the extremes, these were few and far between.
--The Hamiltonian Plan at the Philadelphia Convention was radically different from the Compromise that was eventually ratified. It was so soundly defeated that Hamilton, for a time, did not participate in the Convention out of frustration.

Yes, but Hamilton still essentially got what he wanted, and so did the speculators and mercantilists. They just had to put up a smokescreen to trick anti-Federalists into compliance.

-Debt issues

--The states were NOT paying back the war debt that they had incurred, which is precisely why speculators were purchasing from individuals at less than face value. Quite simply, if the states were paying back, this problem would never had existed in the first place
--Shays Rebellion proved that reforms of the aggregate national debt had to be made.
--While some benefited financially from the Constitution over the Articles, it is fairly clear that this is due to

First of all, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland had already assumed $9 million in Federal securities, a third of the debt, by exchanging them for state securities. People like Hamilton wanted to have a Federal Government soon because, if the Federal debts were just paid off by the states, he would not be able to gain the speculators' support. Secondly, Shays Rebellion was a result of sweet-heart deals for debt speculators by paying them for the face value of paper money in the farmer's hard money. The states knew they needed more power to protect themselves from farmers rightfully picking up arms to protect their farms and property from confiscation by avaricious state governments and their speculator supporters. Also, you left the third sentence incomplete. Seeing as how I have not developed my ESP in order to know what you were going to say, it is not at all clear.

-Foreign Affairs and Trade

--Economic growth had begun after the war because of the temporary upsurge that replacement of lost capital permitted. This is unlikely to have continued because of the disjointed and ineffectual trade and monetary policies that the states had. Growth would have eventually been so hobbled that economic collapse would have been inevitable.
--The improvements made in centralizing control over foreign affairs and trade in the Constitution are immense and obvious, Jefferson's abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade comes to mind. We need little more than reference the case of the Amistad to provide evidence of the benefits of this part.

But the states had already begun to recover in 1788, because they recognized that a system of fiat money and tariffs were destroying themselves. Of course, credit speculators and mercantilists dreaded this because it would reduce their power to make money, and thus supported a powerful Federal government to support their interests. As for foreign affairs, we need only look at how the US has been dragged into every little spot in the world to see how detrimental it has been to us. For tariffs, Hamilton noted in Federalist Article 12 that high tariffs would be impossible under the Articles of Confederation because of competition between the proximate states. However, under a national government such competition would be eliminated and the government could more easily interfere in trade, at the benefit of the industrialists, to the pain of the consumer.

-Failure of the States to fund the Central Congress under the Articles

--Not only are your claims that the Central Congress was trying to enact a sprawling bureaucracy false, but from the start it was underfunded. The Central Congress did not even have enough money to fund the military, let alone that much stuff. The States were faced with their own debt and fiscal crises, strange governmental systems (look at the bizarre oligarchy that had been established in PA) and the need to fund their own services to their own constituents. The Central Congress came in second place in the opinions of the state governments.

Wrong. Read William Graham Sumner. "Between 1783 and 1789, the Continental Congress year by year demanded of the people sums of money for a peace establishment far beyond what was necessary, and . . . the people, by refusing the funds, forced the retrenchment or abandonment of the main features of a great civil establishment, which in fact was not needed."

--Shays rebellion showed the weakness of the Central Congress, in that not only was it unable to act, but it was also unable to provide the military with sufficient resources and manpower to properly defend the few arsenals it had. Shay could have taken at least one federal arsenal with little more than a scuffle, at least once. This was because there was insufficient manpower provided to that installation by the government due to budget restrictions.

And it would have been better if Shay had beaten the shit out of Congress. The state governments had no right to inflict such misery onto middle class people such as he for the benefit of the speculators. A strong military would have been able to suppress people like him, seeking to defend their property against expropriation, to favor the powerful. And the Whiskey Rebellion shows just such an act of suppression of ordinary folk to benefit the politically connected.

In sum, the Constitution is not a protector of liberty or the messiah of the nation. Quite simply, it always has been and always will be a tool of manipulation of the populace for the benefit of the politically connected elites. Better to live in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence than to live in the spirit of the Constitution, the embodiment of tyranny not from a distant ruler but at home.

Seem to me that a lot of that tax was being used to defend the colonies from the french. And if you'd rather be French than pay taxes then I'm sorry but you don't deserve to be in the British Empire. That's just the way it is.

How wonderful then that that's how it worked out for all involved.

We have taxation WITH representation now. That is a huge difference.


Well, unless you live in Washington DC. Then you taxation without representation.

QFT. And D.C. has to beg for money to operate -- hence the high crime in neighborhoods outside of the Federal District (the Mall, the monuments, the Capitol, the White House)...

Just think of it, if you Americans would have not had a Revolution, like my country and all the other former colonies, you would eventually have been given Federation and democracy/independence, you just should have been more patient, then you wouldn't have lost all those lives etc. I mean just think of it, if you didn't have it, American cops right now might not have guns -and might not need them, you'd have national healthcare, and even better - drink tea and play cricket.

And that pretty much happened because the vaunted Empire couldn't afford to keep all those colonies in line, innit?

You're just jealous we started people thinking, "Hey, we can break away too."

I have to say, I find the way people talk about the American revolution very bizarre. After all these people where British people rebelling against being governed by the British goverment. There's no "we" there's no "our" for an American talking about these people. These weren't a people artificially labelled as British tied down by the chains of imperialistic repression but fated to one day break free and to declare their glorious nation as their own. These were a load Britons who decided they preferred Virginia or Boston to Hertfordshire or Glasgow or wherever and then decided "You know what? Forget London, we don't need it any more!"

Notice how the names of all the founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc are all British names? How they all spoke English when denouncing the tyranny of the British government? "Give me liberty or give me death" See, these words might work for someone fighting in a real war of independence against a foreign imperial power, like the Mau Mau uprising for example. But when your using them to fight against your own country, you're just being a bit of a twat.

No, I'm not at all bitter ;)

Well, we can tell you how to live your lives back there in the mother country from across the sea without much interest in or knowledge of what works best for you, and see how you enjoy it.

"Meh, we need more money to fight in the Middle East. Fork it over. Already paying too much? Well, you can cut back on welfare, education and transportation."

Taxes were incidental.

We did not want to be ruled by a monarch half a world away.

Do you genuinely believe such naivety was a motivation for the american revolutionaries?

:headbang:

Do you genuinely believe such naivety was a motivation for the american revolutionaries?

Lets see, we have, say, the primary sources which indicate a desire for self-rule underlay the rebellion and eventual establishment of self-rule.

We also have reason, which we can use to examine and understand the factors that made the colonists desirous of self-rule.

And, we have history, where we have seen again and again and again that colonies around the world get fed up with being ruled from afar, or by outsiders, and instead desire and attain self-rule.

What about this is controversial or unclear?

On the other hand we have the claim, implied by you, that desire for self rule was not "a motivation" for the revolutionaries. I don't know what area it is in which you claim expertise, but I should hope it isn't this one.

:upyours::headbang:

Well, we can tell you how to live your lives back there in the mother country from across the sea without much interest in or knowledge of what works best for you, and see how you enjoy it.

"Meh, we need more money to fight in the Middle East. Fork it over. Already paying too much? Well, you can cut back on welfare, education and transportation."

Well, I can see how the settlers in America didn't like the way they were being governed. But my point here is more that the people fighting the revolutionary war, the people who founded the United States weren't "Americans" they weren't a people fighting against being unnaturally ruled by a foreign despot. They were British settlers who decided they didn't want anything to do with the British government any more.

I do feel that if (white) Americans were more conscious of their thoroughly European origins, and that they were merely the descendants of European immigrants to the area, it might go some way in diffusing the strong nationalist feelings that exist and seem so bizarre to a European* like myself, and with it a lot of the arrogance Americans are accused of having.

*Geographically speaking of course... ;p

Whee!!! (http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-I_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg)

What the hell is that cloud thing?

Speaking as a rich white guy, allow me to say that offshore accounts and banking games don't hold a candle to what you can do LEGALLY through use of THE 'C' CORPORATION (as opposed to the 's' corporation).

Most of the middle class has already noticed that they pay all of the taxes. What they usually don't realize is HOW. The rich pay nothing because they don't own anything on paper. When the rich invest, it's done under the name of what most people call a holding corporation. All they own is the corporation which is an asset, not income.

The magic lies in the fact that people are taxed on INCOME while c corporations are taxed on PROFIT. The difference is subtle but the implications are huge. People get money, pay taxes, then spend/save/whatever. By only paying taxed on profits, when a company gets money, it spends first and ONLY PAYS TAXES ON MONEY LEFT OVER AFTER EXPENDITURES.

You form a c corporation yourself, as the sole shareholder, you can make up any rules you want. So, you write into the company bylaws that the 'CEO' (you) gets medical insurance, childcare, a 'company car', and the 'board of directors' (you and your golf buddies) has an annual meeting in some tropical country every year. What you've effectively done is bought yourself insurance, daycare for your kid, a new car, and a vacation to Hawaii with money that WAS NOT TAXED AT ANY POINT. Guess what? It's totally legal.

"OMG offshore accounts" is just something people say when they don't understand how so-called rich white guys actually pull it off. Behold the true power of the corporation.

And when you think about it, any group of middle class people could, in theory, get together and do the same thing.

But then, they'd become part of the evil white rich people class.

Lets see, we have, say, the primary sources which indicate a desire for self-rule underlay the rebellion and eventual establishment of self-rule.

We also have reason, which we can use to examine and understand the factors that made the colonists desirous of self-rule.

And, we have history, where we have seen again and again and again that colonies around the world get fed up with being ruled from afar, or by outsiders, and instead desire and attain self-rule.

What about this is controversial or unclear?

On the other hand we have the claim, implied by you, that desire for self rule was not "a motivation" for the revolutionaries. I don't know what area it is in which you claim expertise, but I should hope it isn't this one.

Your 'we have history' point fails to cut it considering many of the 'Americans' of the time probably considered themselves British, most prominently the landowners who were leading the revolt. They had served in British regiments, lived in houses that were direct copies of the English country house and debated in local assemblies whose aim was emulation of the Parliament at Westminster. Even the act of rebellion itself was described through the means of Whigisms that had been in vogue in British politics since the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. Indeed, it is probable that they saw their act of defiance not as a break with British traditions but as a rectification of those traditions, returning them to the pristine state they had been in prior to a century of monarchical tampering. As I (and others) have pointed out, even during the rebellion itself, a considerable minority of colonials declared in favour of the British. It is highly unlikely that such a large minority would have stood by (not to mention fought for) a power they considered foreign and illegitimate against their fellow colonials with whom they lived, worked and traded.

Thus, it would seem unlikely they had a problem with 'foreign' power ruling over them, seeing as they did not perceive the British to be foreign at all.

The fact remains that we don't see any strong colonial desire for independence prior to the various British attempts to impose (minor) economic burdens and even then, it was only because the British government behaved stubbornly that the issue matured into a struggle for independence. Had the British government backed down or compromised during the argument, it is likely that the American colonies would have happily remained under British rule for the foreseeable future. The aforementioned high number of pro-British colonials during the revolt testifies to this.

The primary sources that have been cited thus far all have one major problem in common and that is this: that they were all written after the events by rebels themselves. These people had a vested interest in making their treason (and it was technically treason) seem as legitimate as possible: thus, what they say should not automatically be assumed to be what they were thinking about at the time under discussion. This does not make the sources worthless but it does mean that they should be used with considerable caution (as should any historical source).

To back up Volyakovsky's point, look at what flag was flown when the Declaration of Independence was made

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/granduni.jpg

Notice the Union Jack in the corner. The Stars and Stripes as we know it only came into being the year after the Declaration of Independence. The flag tells us one thing.

The colonists viewed themselves as British and were fighting against injustices. It was only later that subjection by a foreign power became significant.

And when you think about it, any group of middle class people could, in theory, get together and do the same thing.

But then, they'd become part of the evil white rich people class.How do you think I got started? The minute you understand how money REALLY works, you become the very same rich white guy. Then you have to fight to keep the system working smoothly as it is.

Revolution always happens when economic disparity exists. In France, it was the difference between the estates. In America, the differences were less obvious, but still present. The colonies had the highest standard of living in the world, relative political and economic equality amongst themselves, and very low population density with endless room to expand. If I were a colonist, I'd resent being told what to do by a much smaller, much more populous nation of paupers and economic freeloaders.

The NHS is not a joke - I and many other Brits owe our lives and our wellbeing to it.

If you are ill with something that will run it's course before you see a doctor, you didn't need to see a doctor anyway and shouldn't be wasting their time.Can you really know ahead of time how long something will run? Too many people I met in St. Andrews just simply assumed it would pass because they didn't want to deal with the crap involved just to see a GP. Maybe that's why one of my friends over there almost lost her foot when she just ASSUMED her badly fractured ankle was just a sprain and didn't bother to try to do anything about it.

When you have ANY problem, you should see a doctor AT ONCE. Early detection is the key to surviving many serious illnesses. Maybe there's a reason that certain cancers have disturbingly higher mortality rates in the UK than in the US. (Source (http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol35/issue6/images/large/hyi099f1.jpeg))