U.s. Founding fathers

[steelish]

There is so much talk of Progressivism and Socialists chipping away at the U.S. foundation.

I am curious what everyone thinks of the Founding Fathers AND what you learned in school that differs from what you've now know to be true.

[VaAugusta]

Virginia REPRESENT

[MMI]

I suppose "everyone" includes British posters?

I recall learning that there was an uneasy peace between the English/British colonies and the French Nouvelle France, broken now and again by incursions into each others' territories, or into disputed areas by the French or British colonies.

The Battle of Jomonville Glen, which was started by a certain George Washington, was the trigger to the Seven Years War, a conflagration that spread around the whle world and found Britain fighting against Fance and its allies (incuding, at various times, Russia,Holland, Spain, Austria and a handful of German dukedoms and principalities).

Because the colonials refused to fight for themselves, Britain had to commit considerable forces to the North American theatre, in addition to those fighting elsewhere, and at no small cost. Consequently, it tried to raise taxes from the colonies to go towards defraying the cost of defending them ... bearing in mind their provocative acts that kicked everything off in the first place and their failure to put up any significant defence themselves. However, it has to be said that the methods used by the British were presumptious, arbitrary and heavy-handed, giving opportunity for the Republicans within the colonies to foment discontent.

Furthermore, Britain entered into treaties with the Indians agreeing that they would be allowed to retain certain lands in return for trade. Apparently, these treaties affected George Washington's personal ambitions to acquire more land and cost him a lot of money. This, coupled with the fact that his career prospects within the British Army were damaged because of Fort Necessity (following Jumonville) meant that his loyalty to the Crown was now in question.

The taxes demanded by Britain were seen as an attempt to usurp the authority of the colonial governments' right to raise taxes, and a boycott of British goods ensued. Eventually Britain had to recognise that the radical colonies would always do as they wished and gradually removed nearly all of the direct taxes it had imposed. Tea, alone, was still taxed directly.

However, this was a symbol of British power and authority and so tea remained boycotted by the radicals/republicans. The boycott was threatened by the fact that, eventually, Britain reduced the tax on tea, and. to prevent cheap tea being bought by the colonials, a group of republicans destroyed a cargo being landed in Boston: the Boston Tea Party.

This brings us to John Hancock, a wealthy merchant and smuggler whose name is associated with the Boston Tea Party because of his speech inciting such action on the day before it took place.

Another "Father" was Tom Paine, a malcontent, privateer (licenced pirate), professional revolutionary, and "political quack", who was fired from his job for lying, and who could not even run a tobacco shop. After leaving England to join the French Revolution, he went to America to stir up trouble for his Motherland by declaring that the differences between Britain and the colonies were irreconcilable.

Thomas Jefferson is a hard man to criticise because he was an enlightnened man and a profound thinker and philosopher, and his republicanism is not to be held against him, neither is his hostility to British imperialism per se.

Until you consider the Louisiana Purchase, where he doubled the size of the Union and brought about conflict with Spain in one unconstitutional and imperialist act. As a Francophile, he sowed the seed of the 1812 War by trading with France and supporting its wars against Britain, and by allowing British deserters from the Royal Navy to claim US nationality, and then to object when the RN boarded American ships to recapture those deserters, now serving on those ships instead.

He also advocated the abolition of slavery, although he owned several himself, and he advocated and instigagted the removal of Indians "beyond our reach" or for their "elimination" where they were found to have assisted Britain during the War.

He was an opponent of women in politics - something which neither he nor the nation was ready for.

OK this is an intentional demolition job: I've avoided the good things I've seen, because I enjoy being provocative, and because I do believe that none of the Founding Fathers is really the hero he has been made out to be. I'm no historian, so maybe you can rebut everything I've said about Washington, Hancock, Paine and Jefferson, and maybe there are better men than these, whom I have not even mentioned; but maybe also, they conspired together to carry out actions that furthered their own personal interests as much as, if not more than, those of their fellow republicans, and certainly to the disadvantage of their Loyalist compatriots. Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

[Thorne]

I suppose "everyone" includes British posters?

This is a wonderful post, my friend! Great job.
It's amazing how the same points of history, looked upon from two different points of view, can appear so radically different. I seriously doubt that anything you've said can be considered false. It's only in the interpretation of events and personalities that any arguments might ensue.

OK this is an intentional demolition job: I've avoided the good things I've seen, because I enjoy being provocative,

Not you, surely!

and because I do believe that none of the Founding Fathers is really the hero he has been made out to be.

I have to agree. One thing that history shows us beyond any doubt is that heroes are not always on the right side, and that much of the time any righteousness they have is self-righteousness. Then too, villains are seldom as bad as they are portrayed. In fact, it can be very difficult to tell which is which, depending upon which side you are viewing them.

Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

A truth all of us would be well advised to understand, and remember.

Thanks again for a great post.

[Thorne]

^
That ought to really frost his balls. I'm sure he expected me to return fire in spades.

Sorry, MMI. You enjoy being provocative, I enjoy being contrary.

[MMI]

Thanks again for a great post.

I need to lie down ... I feel a little giddy.

[Thorne]

I need to lie down ... I feel a little giddy.

LOL! Up the rebels!

[leo9]

Maybe the truth is not to be found in school text books (either American or British).

One of my first lessons in scepticism.

My mother spent WW2 at college in America, so when my history class got around to the American Revolution, she helpfully lent me her old textbooks. Reading them side by side with the school's British texts was illuminating... an unexpected lesson in how the same facts can be given completely opposite spins.

[Thorne]

One of my first lessons in scepticism.

I learned the same lesson, a long time ago. Back in the dark ages, before the Internet, I had a history teacher assign a lesson for our study of the American Revolution. Our public library had copies of both the Encyclopedia Americana and the Encyclopedia Britannica. We had to use both sources for a short paper about, I think, the Boston Tea Party. Turns out the lesson was more about being aware of your sources than the Revolution.

[steelish]

What's the main things I remember learning as a kid in school?

George Washington was our first President.

George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed to it, "I cannot tell a lie"

Washington crossed the Delaware, leading the troops in battle.

Washington helped defeat Great Britain.

What do I now know about Washington?

George Washington was called the indispensable man. I didn't really know why he was called the indispensable man until I read "The Real George Washington", a book based upon letters and papers he had written throughout his life.

Sorry, I like George Washington an awful lot. He's the kind of guy we need to have around now. This is what we need; a guy who is just honest and doesn't want to serve. How many current politicians do you think fit that bill?

People who say, all the time, "Well, I want to be president." You do? Why exactly? I can't imagine a worse job. I can't imagine, especially now, the next guy who serves, even this president, what's left of our country? How do you knit this all back together?

It wasn't much different back when George Washington was around. Things were a mess. And he was the indispensable man because nobody trusted anybody. All the states were arguing with each other. You couldn't sell anything across the border. The whole thing was falling apart.

Here is George Washington, a man who at 16 was out surveying land for his country, which was then Great Britain. All he wanted to do was go to Mount Vernon and be a farmer. His countries, Britain and then the United States of America, had him serving for year after year after year after year.

After he won the Revolutionary War, he went back to be that farmer in Mount Vernon. And things started to fall apart. They came knocking at his door and said, George, we need you, because the whole thing is falling apart. His response was, "Have I not yet done enough for my country?" Their answer was a resounding "No".

He went back and he didn't say very much during the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. He didn't say much. He didn't have to.

He was a revered figure. A farmer came into the field one day, and heard some noise and saw George Washington standing there, in the field and he just watched him as he got down in Valley Forge on one knee and he prayed all by himself.

He's a guy that in the end could have been made king. He could have been made a ruler. He's a guy who could have been really upset at Congress.

Valley Forge: when you think of Valley Forge and how they were cold and didn't have shoes. They didn't have pants. And it was year after year after year. And yet, Congress just wouldn't help our troops. And he stuck with them. In the end, they weren't going to pay the troops.

In the most telling moment of George Washington's power; the soldiers were going to a revolt. They had just won against the most powerful army on the planet, Great Britain. And then they found out the United States of America, (what a surprise), weasely Congress wasn't going to take care of the troops, wasn't going to pay them. Well, they went nuts. They went nuts. They said, "You're not going to pay us? We've just defeated Great Britain! You think we're afraid of you?"

They made a plan and they knew Washington wouldn't go it with. They made a plan to go and kill everybody in Congress. Washington heard about it. He said let's not replace one tyrant with another, but they didn't listen to him. They had a secret meeting. He wasn't invited to it.

He knew what was going on. He went to Congress and he got a letter from a member of Congress that said, OK, guys. I'll do my best. Please, give me more time. I'll do my best.

He found out about this meeting and he walked in, in the middle of it. All heads turned and it became silent. They didn't know what to say. He said — again, paraphrasing — "Gentlemen, I know what you're doing. Don't do it. Don't do it. We didn't work this hard." He said, "I have a letter in my pocket," and he reached into his pocket. And he opened up the letter and he was going to read it. But he needed his glasses.

This is a guy who used to sit on top of a white horse in the middle of a battle and he never got shot. (Can we say major target?) They thought this guy was god. And when he put his glasses on, he said, "I am sorry. But I have grown old and gray in the service of my country."

Nobody had ever seen him with his glasses on. It seems like such a silly story, but it goes to the power of George Washington. He took his glasses off, folded the paper up. Never read it and walked out.

They decided not to storm Congress. But they were mad at George Washington. In the end, a lot of his troops weren't real happy with him, didn't want to stand with him.

I think what we should admire about George Washington is most of the choices he made, he didn't want to make. Most of the things he did, he didn't want to do. He was revered for it. He was revered.

And I think it's because they knew that in the end, he didn't matter to him. It was just doing the right thing. That's what mattered.

(And this is just one of many stories within the book)

[TantricSoul]

Nice posts all ... a very fun thread to read and educational as well. thanks so much!

[tedteague]

Well, by and large, the colonists really didnt have any real reason to revolt, and then they bickered for a few decades using big fancy words and writing in caligraphy. and you cant summarize the founding fathers uner the blanket phrase "founding father" hamilton and jefferson are polar opposites

[steelish]

Well, by and large, the colonists really didnt have any real reason to revolt

Really???

PRE-REVOLUTION CAUSES:


SEDITION ACT is a common law offense that is less than treason but that may be preliminary to it. The new law said that citizens could be fined or jailed if they criticized elected officials.


QUEBEC ACT set up a government for Canada and protected the rights of French Catholics.

Act of the British Parliament that vested the government of Quebec in a governor and council and preserved the French Civil Code and the Roman Catholic Church. The act was an attempt to deal with major questions that had arisen during the attempt to make the French colony of Canada a province of the British Empire in North America. Among these were whether an assembly should be summoned, when nearly all the inhabitants of the province of Quebec, being Roman Catholics, would, because of the Test Acts, be ineligible to be representatives; whether the practice of the Roman Catholic religion should be allowed to continue, and on what conditions; and whether French or English law was to be used in the courts of justice.

The act, declaring it inexpedient to call an assembly, put the power to legislate in the hands of the governor and his council. The practice of the Roman Catholic religion was allowed, and the church was authorized to continue to and oath of allegiance substituted so as to allow Roman Catholics to hold office. French civil law continued, but the criminal law was to be English. Because of these provisions the act has been called a generous and statesmanlike attempt to deal with the peculiar conditions of the province.

At the last moment additions were made to the bill by which the boundaries given the province by the Proclamation of 1763 were extended. This was done because no satisfactory means had been found to regulate Indian affairs and to govern the French settlers on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. It was decided, therefore, put the territory between the Ohio and the Mississippi under the governor of Quebec, and the boundaries of Quebec were extended southward to the junction of the Ohio and the Mississippi and northward to the height of land between the Great Lakes and the Hudson Bay.

This provision of the act, together with the recognition of the Roman Catholic religion, was seen to threaten the unity and security of British America by, in effect, reviving the old French Empire destroyed in 1763. The American colonists viewed the act as a measure of coercion. The act was thus a major cause of the American Revolution and provoked an invasion of Quebec by the armies of the revolting colonies in the winter of 1775-76. Its provisions., on the other hand, did little at the time to win French support of British rule in Quebec; and, expected for the clergy and seigneurs, most of the French remained neutral. The act eventually became important to French Canadians as the basis of their religious and legal rights.


TEA ACT the act did away with some taxes paid by the company.

In British colonial history, legislative maneuver by the British ministry of Lord to make English tea marketable in America. A previous crisis had been averted in 1770 when all the Townshend Acts duties had been lifted except that on tea, which had been mainly supplied to the Colonies since then by Dutch smugglers. In an effort to help the financially troubled British East India Company sell 17,000,000 pounds of tea stored in England, the Tea Act rearranged excise regulations so that the company could pay the Townshend duty and still undersell its competitors. At the same time, the North administration hoped to reassert Parliament's right to levy direct revenue taxes on the Colonies. The shipments became a symbol of taxation tyranny to the colonists, reopening the door to unknown future tax abuses. Colonial resistance culminated in Boston Tea Party (December 1773), in which was dumped into the ocean, and in a similar action in New York (April 1774).


QUARTERING ACT under the law, colonists had to provide housing, candles, bedding, and beverages to British soldiers stationed in the colonies.

In American colonial history, the British parliament provision (actually an amendment to the annual Mutiny Act) requiring colonial authorities to provide food, drink, quarters, fuel, and transportation to British forces stationed in their towns or villages. This act was passed primarily in response to greatly increased empire defense costs in America following the French and Indian War and Pontiac's War. Like the Stamp act of the same year, it also was an assertion of British authority over the colonies, in disregard of the fact that troop financing had been exercised for 150 years by representative provincial assemblies rather than by the Parliament in London. The act was particularly resented in New York, where the largest number of reserves were quartered, and outward defiance led directly to the Suspending Act as part of the Townshend legislation of 1767. After considerable tumult, the Quartering Act was allowed to expire in 1770. An additional quartering stipulation was included in the Intolerable Acts of 1774.


TOWNSHEND ACT taxes goods such as glass, paper, silk, lead, and tea. Also set up new ways to collect taxes.

In U.S. colonial history, series of four acts passed by the British Parliament in an attempt to assert what it considered to be its historic right of colonial authority through suspension of a recalcitrant representative assemble and through strict collection provisions of additional revenue duties. The British-American colonists named them after Charles Townshend show sponsored them.

The Suspending Act prohibited the New York Assembly form conducting any further business until it complied with the financial requirements of the Quartering Act (1765) for the expenses of British troops stationed there. The second act often called the Townshend duties, imposed for the second time in history direct revenue duties, payable at colonial ports, on lead, glass, paper, and tea. The third act established strict and often arbitrary machinery of customs collection in the American Colonies, including additional officers, searchers, spies, coast guard vessels, search warrants, writs of assistance, and Board of Customs Commissioners at Boston, all to be financed out of customs revenues. The fourth Towndhend Act lifted commercial duties on tea, allowing it to be exported to the Colonies free of all British taxes.

The acts posed an immediate threat to established traditions of colonial self-government, especially the practice of taxation through representative provincial assemblies. They were resisted everywhere with verbal agitation and physical violence, deliberate evasion of duties renewed nonimportation agreements among merchants, and overt acts of hostility toward British enforcement agents, especially in Boston. Such colonial tumult, coupled with the instability of frequently changing British ministries, resulted, on March 5, 1770 (the same day as the Boston Massacre), in repeal of all revenue duties except that on tea, lifting of the Quartering Act requirements, and removal of troops from Boston, which thus temporarily averted hostilities.


SUGAR ACT replaced an earlier tax on molasses that had been in effect for years.

In U.S. colonial history, British legislation aimed at ending the smuggling trade in sugar and molasses from the French and Dutch West Indies and at providing increased revenues to fund enlarged British Empire responsibilities following the French and Indian War. Actually a reinvigoration of the largely ineffective Molasses Act of 1733, the Sugar Act provided for strong customs enforcement of the duties levied on refined sugar and molasses imported into the colonies from non-British sources in the Caribbean. The Act thus granted a virtual monopoly of the American market to British West Indies sugar Planters. Early colonial protests at these duties were ended when the tax was lowered two years later. The Protected price of British sugar actually benefited New England distillers, though they did not appreciate it. More objectionable to the colonist were the stricter bonding regulations for shipmasters, whose cargoes were subject to seizure and confiscation by British customs commissioners and who were placed under the authority of the Vice-Admiralty Court in distant Nova Scotia if they violated the trade rules or failed to pay duties. As a result of this act, the earlier clandestine trade in foreign sugar, and thus much colonial maritime commerce, were severely hampered.


STAMP ACT this law put a tax on legal documents such as wills, diplomas, and marriage papers.

In U.S. colonial history, the British parliamentary attempt to raise revenue through direct taxation of all colonial commercial and legal papers, and newspapers, pamphlets, cards, almanacs, and dice. The devastating effect of Pontiac's War (1763-64) an colonial frontier settlements added to the enormous new defense burdens resulting from Great Britain's victory (1763) in the French and Indian War. The British chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grenville, hoped to meet at least half of these costs by the combined revenues of the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act, a common revenue device in England. Completely unexpected was the avalanche of protest form the colonists, who effectively nullified the Stamp Act by outright refusal to use the stamps as well as by riots, stamp burning, and intimidation of colonial stamp distributors. Colonists passionately upheld their rights as Englishmen to taxed only by their own consent through their own representative assemblies, as had been the practice for a century and a half. In addition to nonimportation agreements among colonial merchants, the Stamp Act Congress was convened in New York (October 1765) by moderate representative of nine colonies to frame resolution of "rights and grievances" and to petition the king and Parliament for repeal of the objectionable measures. Bowing chiefly to pressure (in the form of a flood of petitions of repeal) from British merchants and manufacturers whose colonial exports had been curtailed, Parliament, largely against the wishes of the House of Lords, repealed the act in early 1766. Simultaneously, however, Parliament issued the Declaratory Act, which reasserted its right of direct taxation anywhere within the empire, "in all cases whatsoever." The Protest throughout the Colonies against the Stamp Act contributed much to the spirit and organization of unity that was a necessary prelude to the struggle for independence a decade later.


INTOLERABLE ACT laws passed by Parliament in 1774 to punish colonists in Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party.

In U.S. colonial history, collective name of four punitive measures enacted by the British Parliament in retaliation for acts of colonial defiance, together with the Quebec Act establishing a new administration for the territory ceded to Britain after the French and Indian War (1754-63).

Angered by the Boston Tea Party (1773), the British government passed the Boston Port Bill, closing that city's harbour until restitution was made for the destroyed tea. Second, the Massachusetts Government Act abrogated the colony's charter of 1691, reducing it to the level of a crown colony, substituting a military government under Gen. Thomas Gage, and forbidding town meetings with out approval.

The third, the Administration of Justice Act, was aimed at protecting British officials charged with capital offenses during law enforcement by allowing them to go to England or another colony for trial. The fourth Coercive Act included new arrangements for housing British troops in occupied American dwellings, thus reviving the indignation that surrounded the earlier Quartering Act, which had been allowed to expire in 1770.

The Quebec Act, under consideration since 1773, removed all the territory and fur trade between the Ohio and Mississippi from possible colonial jurisdiction and awarded it to the province of Quebec. By establishing French civil law and the Roman Catholic religion in the coveted area, the act raised the spectre of popery before the mainly Protestant colonies.

The Intolerable Acts represented an attempt to reimpose strict British control, but after 10 years of vacillation, the decision to be firm had come too late. Rather than cowing Massachusetts and separating it from the other colonies, the oppressive measures became the justification for convening the First Continental Congress later in that same year of 1774.



The Boston Tea Party
The Boston Tea Party was a raid by American colonists on British ships in Boston Harbor. It took place on December 16, 1773. A group of citizens disguised as Indians, armed with tomahawks threw the contents of 342 chests of tea into the bay. This incident was one of many which stirred up bad feelings between the colonists and the British Government and soon led to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. The raid of American colonists that attacked the ships all began when the people of Massachusetts were angry over a tax which had been placed by the British Parliament on tea coming into the colonies. Though some time ships came into the harbor loaded with highly taxed tea. Because ships carrying cargoes of tea arrived in Boston Harbor continuously, the colonists called town meetings and came up with resolutions to stop the importation. The resolutions urged Governor Thomas Hutchinson to send back the ships and his refusal led to the Boston Tea Party.


Boston Massacre(By Paul Garcia)
The Boston massacre was no massacre at all, but a Boston mob and a squad of British soldiers. The riot took place on March 5, 1770.
It was called a "massacre" because several colonists were killed and several others were wounded. Here is the story as Paul Revere tells it. "Twenty-one days before, on the night of March 5,1770, five men had been shot to death in Boston by British soldiers participating in the event known as the Boston Massacre. A mob of men and boys taunted a sentry guard standing outside of the city's costume house.When other British soldiers came to the sentry's support, a free for all ensued and shots were fired into the crowd. Four died on the spot and a fifth died 4 days later. Capt. Preston and six of his men were arrested for murder, but later were acquitted through the efforts of attorneys Robert Auchmuty, John Adams, and Josiah Quincy who took their defense to ensure a fair trial. Later two other soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter." This was one of the reasons we had the American Revolution.


Common Sense
Common Sense was written by Thomas Paine and published in January of 1776. This document was one of many revolutionary pamphlets that was famous during that time. It advocated complete independence of Britain and it followed the natural rights philosophy of John Locke, justifying independence as the will of the people and revolution as a device for bring happiness. These words inspired the colonists and prepared them for the Declaration of Independence, although the thoughts were not original.

Benjamin Rush, the Philadelphia physician, encourage Paine, while Paine was writing the pamphlet. Rush read the manuscript, secured the criticism of Benjamin Franklin, suggested the Title, and arranged for its anonymous publication by Robert Bell of Philadelphia. Common Sense was an immediate success. Paine estimated that not less than one hundred thousand copies were run off, and he bragged that the pamphlet's popularity was beyond anything since the invention of printing. Everywhere it aroused discussion about monarchy, the origin of government, English constitution ideas, and independence.

Common Sense traces the origin of government to a human desire to restrain lawlessness. But government at its best is, like dress, "the badge of lost innocence." It can be diverted to corrupt purposes by the people who created it. Therefore, the simpler the government, the easier it is for the people to discover its weakness and make the necessary adjustments. In Britain "it is wholly owing to the people, and not to the constitution of the government, that the crown is not as oppressive as in Turkey. The monarchy, Paine asserted, had corrupted virtue, impoverished the nation, weakened the voice of Parliament, and poisoned people's minds. The royal brute of Britain had usurped the rightful place of law.

Paine argued that the political connection with England was both unnatural and harmful to Americans. Reconciliation would cause "more calamities" than it would bring benefits. The welfare of America, as well as its destiny, in Paine's view, demanded steps toward immediate independence.



OLIVE BRANCH PETITION
The Olive Branch Petition was a document that declared the colonists' loyalty to the Britsh king. This document was one of the last atempts to make peace prior to the revolution. The petition also states that the colonists wanted the Intorable Acts repeled. King George III rejected the petition and the colonists had no other choice but to revolt.

[tedteague]

Yea, thats a good argument, but its incredibly biased, obviously.

On Taxes:
All thos taxes you list, those arent a reason to revolt. Because, and I'm being completely serious here, they were repealed when the colonists threw a fit. I'm not even joking. Stamp Act, Suagr Tax, Townshend Act, all of it (except tea, but we'll get to that later), were repealed. As in dont have to be paid. Because the colonists didnt like it. Thats a sweet deal when you can get out of taxes by not liking them.
The Tea Tax - ah the big one. First, to preface my statement, GB gave one company a monopoly. Only the (I think East) India Trading Compnay could sell tea and it would be taxed. Remember, one comodity because we complained. Thats it. Anyway, the colonists said "No, I want my own smuggled tea"
And they did just that . . . despite the smuggled tea was inferior to the standard tea . . . and it was less expensive, after taxes. So the colonists wanted more expensive shitty tea. Yeah, these guys arent caught up in the moment at all.
Now all these taxes come from one main source. There was this party in the woods called the French-Indian War. To anyone who doesnt know, the colonists sort of wandered off into clearly marked French trading routes and yelled "surprise" with some guns, then when the Native Americans yelled "bon jour" with their tomohawks, they cried until GB got involved. But a big ass war across the world costs money. So, to fund the war the colonists started that was fought by the Brits, they decided to tax them.

On the Sedition Act - it never became anything more than an empty threat.

The Qaurtering Act- supplying the troops WE begged for is expensive, so we should pay them for doing it. this is only fair.

Intolerable Act- makes sense really. If you dump something that logically is a good thing into the water, you should only pay it back. And if we're all in a huff because the Brits didnt let us assemble (cause the last time we did, we acted so maturely), thats what happens when you do terrorist things. LA riots anybody? National Guard showed up and put everyone in time out.

So lets review:
1. The Sugar Act, Townshend Act, and Stamp Act dont matter. at all. Because they were repealed when we bitched enough. if anything, they help the case that the colonists were kind of overreacting.
2. Tea Tax - they made us buy good tea and an affordable price to fund the war we started. The nerve of them.
3.Quartering Act - if we're going to say we're afraid of the French and Indians, and refuse to pay any taxes whatsoever, this also makes sense
4. Intolerable Act - a rational reaction to a completely irrational occurence.

So . . . the colonists are ruled by this guy, who really doesn't do anything, lets them get away with whatever they want (there was NEVER a serious threat to the smugglers) and will protect us when we fuck up . . . NO, WE DONT WANT LIFE TO BE THAT EASY! FUCK YOU BRITAIN!

[steelish]

That's why I do not rely on textbooks for answers. I research. I look for articles containing words from our founding fathers. I go to the library and look up copies of original documents written by them.

[denuseri]

Thats awfully funny, sounded like ole King George himself throwing a fit.

Thing is I seem to recall reading that the Colonists responded as civily as possible under the circumstances and very clearly layed out why they were leaving the Crown.

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

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

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

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

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by 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 seas to be tried for pretended offenses:



For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned 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 amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

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

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

[tedteague]

Well of course they feel that way, hence they revolted. But the truth of the matter is that you could get away with way more shit THEN than we can do NOW. by a lot. i mean, the taxes were repealed because we didnt want them, thats absurd

[MMI]

I have tried to find the text of the Rhodesian Proclamation declaring indepeendence in 1965, but I cannot. I refer you to this image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rho-udi.jpg instead, which if you copy and enlarge will demonstrate that the renegade colony of Rhodesia claimed the same kind of justification for its illegal acts that the 13 colonies asserted for their own treachery almost 200 years earlier. It is, in fact, known that Rhodesia found the US Declaration of Independence to be the best model for its own intentions and therefore chose to model its Proclamation on that document.

But it is not only Britain that has been accused of such heinous misrule of wholly virtuous men, but the United States has itself, and by its own citizens, too. Senator John Townsend said that, "our enemies [the Abolitionists] are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery." This marked the first steps to the seccesion from the Union by the Confederate States, leading to the American Civil War. You might like to look at the Georgian Seccession document, for example.

The point I am making is that you can dress up any act - good or evil - so that it will appeal to the uncritical mind and will in some cases lead them to lay down their lives for an unjust cause, beliving they are acting entirely honourably.

[denuseri]

Except the only thing is...our cuase was both "just" and "honorable" in both the revolutionary and the civil war victories.

[Thorne]

Except the only thing is...our cuase was both "just" and "honorable" in both the revolutionary and the civil war victories.

Only to 'our' side, and only because 'we' won. Had things gone differently, our cause would have been in the wrong as far as history was concerned.

As can be seen by our British cousins here, justice and honor are in the eyes of the beholder.

[tedteague]

Only to 'our' side, and only because 'we' won. Had things gone differently, our cause would have been in the wrong as far as history was concerned.

As can be seen by our British cousins here, justice and honor are in the eyes of the beholder.

Exactly, justice and honor are completely subjective phrases, and two people can view totally opposite acts as honorable or just. That'sa slippery slope.To many, the Union in the Civil War was very unjust and dishonorable because its a massive case of government forcibly siezing property. Now I'm not going to get into the ethics of the civil war because thats way too messy, but the point I'm trying to make is that from an OBJECTIVE viewpoint, the colonists were douchebags

[denuseri]

Thats not a very objective statement to say the least ted...smh.

So breaking away from tyranny and puting an end to slavery were not good things?

[tedteague]

Thats not a very objective statement to say the least ted...smh.

So breaking away from tyranny and puting an end to slavery were not good things?

Well, in the case of revolutionary war, its pretty clear that tyranny is not an accurate word to describe the British. Maybe "good intentioned" works better

In the Civil War, putting an end to slavery was a very good thing . . . but thats assuming that was the reason the war was fought in the first place

[Thorne]

Well, in the case of revolutionary war, its pretty clear that tyranny is not an accurate word to describe the British. Maybe "good intentioned" works better

No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.

In the Civil War, putting an end to slavery was a very good thing . . . but thats assuming that was the reason the war was fought in the first place

Slavery was one aspect of the Civil War, among the least important at the time. Slavery was a doomed institution anyway, a last gasp of agrarianism which would have ended with the rise of industrialism. Tractors and cotton gins would have made slavery too expensive to continue, and world opinion would have been the final straw. It might even be argued that forcibly freeing the slaves did more damage to the eventual civil rights movement than if they had been freed voluntarily. The race-hatred and resentment of the slave states might not have become so ingrained into society.

[tedteague]

[QUOTE=Thorne;877160]No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


I'm sorry, but I don't see how the British were tyranical at all. They didn't enforce the few laws they never repealled

[MMI]

No, tyranny is the right word. Regardless of what else the British brought to the Colonies, they tried to maintain the peerage system, basically a holdover of the feudal system, where a handful of privileged men were given control over lands and persons simply by dint of birth. These men were placed above common law, answerable only to the king, and could imprison or execute any commoner on a whim. This is the system the Colonist leaders wanted to discard.

Unfortunately, we seem to be steering in that direction once again.


Slavery was one aspect of the Civil War, among the least important at the time. Slavery was a doomed institution anyway, a last gasp of agrarianism which would have ended with the rise of industrialism. Tractors and cotton gins would have made slavery too expensive to continue, and world opinion would have been the final straw. It might even be argued that forcibly freeing the slaves did more damage to the eventual civil rights movement than if they had been freed voluntarily. The race-hatred and resentment of the slave states might not have become so ingrained into society.

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

[tedteague]

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

Thats very true, in fact. The US is only one of two states to have abolished slavery through war

[DuncanONeil]

And the Lords and Ladies have returned to the USofA! Only they now call themselves Senators and Representatives!

That is so wrong, Thorne, and quite untypical of you. I cannot believe you don't know it. In fact to suggest aristocrats could execute commoners on a whim, that they were accountable only to the king and were above common law is so intrue that it must be a deliberate untruth, blind acceptance of revolutionary propaganda, or pure ignorance.

Ever since the English Civil War - if not before then (I'm thinking of Magna Carta) - the King has been subject to the law, even though the laws were made in the monarch's name. And just as King George was monarch subject to the consent of Parliament, so all other peers of the realm were subject to all the laws of the land.

True the aristocracy had privilege. It was the same sort of privilege that the rich and the educated have in ... ummm, let's think ... in modern USA, for example. Of course, they had titles too, and that gave them added presence and an entré into hgh society, but by that time, the real power was moving away from the Lords and Ladies and into the coffers of the merchants, explorers and industrialists, who were marrying their daughters to impoverished counts, barons and dukes in order to acquire greater prestige.

As for slavery, had you not revolted, there'd have been no American Civil War because slavery was abolished by Britain throughout all of its possessions years before it happened in America. Peacefully.

[denuseri]

Slavery and weather or not states would be admitted as slave or free was perhaps the single defining issue of the 20 years leading up to and during the civil war.

As stated in the declaration...many colonists allready had their own forms of governemnt in place when the crown came in to surpress them after the fact and after they said they wouldnt do any such thing.

[tedteague]

Slavery and weather or not states would be admitted as slave or free was perhaps the single defining issue of the 20 years leading up to and during the civil war.

As stated in the declaration...many colonists allready had their own forms of governemnt in place when the crown came in to surpress them after the fact and after they said they wouldnt do any such thing.

The real, underlying issue was states rights vs federal government. It was unresolved from the constitution, not in slavery itself, but in how much the fed govt could regilate states. The same controversy exists today in Roe v Wade. The South, simply put, didnt think the Federal Govt had the right to decide if slavery was legal or not. This led to the controversy of nullification, whereby states could choose to ignore laws that they viewed as unconstitutional. They took it a step further and secceeded. To say it was about slavery is a gross over simplification, but it's what is generall taught in school . . . of course the very nature of this thread is aruguably the failures of schools to educate.