Was American Secession Justified?

[Shan Zhu]

Yes, this is a random debate topic. Please don't hurt me )=

~

When I lived in Virginia, battlefields and museums were as common as movie theaters, and almost as popular. History was just an integral part of the culture—it was practically in the dirt. So, between my classes and my own reading, I couldn't help but take an interest in Revolutionary history.

And really, I can't help but sympathize with the British. The American colonists were part of one of the most prosperous societies on Earth. Their grievances concerned piddling taxes that made products cheaper, and their response, between various acts of arson, the abuse of British officials, and glorified vandalism, were not only unabashedly criminal, but practically of a terrorist bent.

I understand that the colonists were not legitimately represented in parliament (although they did have non-voting representatives), but the same is true of all US territories today. Does Puerto Rico have the right to violently rebel because it is unrepresented in Congress? Furthermore, the colonists were able to see the Stamp Act and most of the Townshend Acts repealed. Are these the accomplishments of a people with no political clout? As the largest commercial interest for Great Britain, the American colonies had huge—if indirect—power in the British government.

I'm not denying that the colonists did not have legitimate complaints. I am arguing, however, that the British had much larger grievances (the destruction of 342 barrels of expensive tea is not a small economic loss), and that the colonies' problems did not justify violent secession.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Sega DogTagz]

I'm not denying that the colonists did not have legitimate complaints. I am arguing, however, that the British had much larger grievances (the destruction of 342 barrels of expensive tea is not a small economic loss), and that the colonies' problems did not justify violent secession.

Depends on your viewpoint on the proverbial shaft that is the colonization process in itself. Whenever I look over at the African continent, and see the lasting damage extended colonization did over there, I tend not to feel too sorry about the people before me taking it on themselves to spill some tea.

To say Britain had LARGER grievances on the colonists in the US, would draw the connection that Europe was doing the African continent a favor by keeping the practice up there. There is no way anyone could justify that when looking at the end result of destabilization, busted infrastructure/economies and jacked up boarders they left behind.

Yeah, it sucked for Brittan that something they legally owned revolted on them, but if you mistreat a dog than you really shouldn't be surprised when it bites you. In fact, I pray my dog is smart enough to bite me when I do it wrong.

Their grievances concerned piddling taxes that made products cheaper, and their response, between various acts of arson, the abuse of British officials, and glorified vandalism, were not only unabashedly criminal, but practically of a terrorist bent.

Man, that "One's man Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter" thing works everywhere. While not my favorite, it might just be the greatest quote ever.

*goes back to watching SatAM*

Edited November 5, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Shan Zhu]

Depends on your viewpoint on the proverbial shaft that is the colonization process in itself. Whenever I look over at the African continent, and see the lasting damage extended colonization did over there, I tend not to feel too sorry about the people before me taking it on themselves to spill some tea.

I'm calling a straw man.

What does Africa have to do with the United States? Yeah, British colonization in Africa was unjustified, but that doesn't mean that its treatment of the American colonies was the same. The American colonists were British citizens. They were allowed to govern themselves for the most part. They were among the most prosperous people on Earth, allowed political and religious freedom unseen anywhere else.

Maybe I would agree that Indian or Burman secession was justified, but that's got nothing to do with the American Revolution.

To say Britain had LARGER grievances on the colonists in the US, would draw the connection that Europe was doing the African continent a favor by keeping the practice up there.

No it doesn't. African colonization has about as much in common with the American colonies as the American prison system has with Nazi concentration camps.

Yeah, it sucked for Brittan that something they legally owned revolted on them, but if you mistreat a dog than you really shouldn't be surprised when it bites you. In fact, I pray my dog is smart enough to bite me when I do it wrong.

What did Britain do wrong to the American colonies?

Man, that "One's man Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter" thing works everywhere. While not my favorite, it might just be the greatest quote ever.

So it's OK to torch an innocent man's ship, ruining his livelihood, because he happens to work for a country who has a taxation policy you disagree with?

The Californian government taxes its people more than Britain taxed the colonies. Shall we go torch Arnold Schwarzenegger's house, then?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Badnik Zero]

It's about as justified as other wars, but probably not as glamorous as we Americans are taught in school. It certainly wasn't an ideological war, although the idea of throwing off old-style monarchies was pretty popular in Europe at the time. I guess as colonials they felt that especially applied to them. The way I see it, the founders of this country were the elites, rich and educated (and owned slaves), and they didn't want to pay their dues to the crown as a colony. It's a fair gripe I suppose, but the British cracked down on us for a while, which lead to open conflict. We set up a country with additional freedoms at the time, but I don't think that was the ultimate goal.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Stretchy Werewolf

[Shan Zhu]

It's about as justified as other wars

Well, that's kind of vague, no offense. Was it as justified as going to war with Hitler? As justified as going to war with the Confederacy? As justified as going to war with the native Americans?

Not all wars are equal.

although the idea of throwing off old-style monarchies was pretty popular in Europe at the time.

It was? I'm pretty sure Britain was the only place that had actually tried that, and they reinstated the king.

That said, I'm not sure if the rest of your post really supports the American Revolution. In fact, it makes its leaders sound exploitive and self-interested. I'm not sure I agree with your portrayal of men like Washington, but I'd certainly agree that the American revolutionaries were not a noble group by and large.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Sega DogTagz]

I'm calling a straw man.

What does Africa have to do with the United States? Yeah, British colonization in Africa was unjustified, but that doesn't mean that its treatment of the American colonies was the same. The American colonists were British citizens. They were allowed to govern themselves for the most part. They were among the most prosperous people on Earth, allowed political and religious freedom unseen anywhere else.

Maybe I would agree that Indian or Burman secession was justified, but that's got nothing to do with the American Revolution.

No it doesn't. African colonization has about as much in common with the American colonies as the American prison system has with Nazi concentration camps.

I resent your straw man

While there may be differences between Africa and the US situation, they were still both shrouded under the powers of colonialism. I realize that the original settlers lack the ability to see into the future at the ruination such a process would bring to the African Continent, but it was still very much in their best interests to see that they did not like where the situation was headed and to do something about it. Besides, even at that time there was a well established history stating that colonialism would suck balls for everyone but the guy at the top.

Its got everything to do with the American Revolution because many of the independence struggles of Africa have to do with shedding the same colonialism forces and the ill effects it left behind. Africa is just more of an extreme case.

And yes, the U.S. was prosperous and free, but when you quantify that data with all "free labor" and lack of representation (+ taxation) from the motherland, than much of that quality goes right out of the window.

What did Britain do wrong to the American colonies?

They really didn't like those taxes. Of course there was the lack of representations, then there were those trade restrictions (that greatly limited US colonist profit potential), the quartering of troops, multiple suppression laws (such as the re-active Intolerable/Coercive Acts)...... shall I go on?

A good deal of these aren't actually illegal (depending on where you stand on extended citizenship rights), but it certainly wasn't making any freinds state-side.

These measures took money away from colonists and severely limited some of the freedoms they moved across the pond to get in the first place.

So it's OK to torch an innocent man's ship, ruining his livelihood, because he happens to work for a country who has a taxation policy you disagree with?

The Californian government taxes its people more than Britain taxed the colonies. Shall we go torch Arnold Schwarzenegger's house, then?

I never justified that. I just meant to say that any Hero will look like a Bad guy under the opposing light.

[Badnik Zero]

Not all wars are equal.

I guess it was wrong to say that. What I mean is it seems like a petty conflict compared to wars that have been fought since. It was essentially over taxes and who would command the colony. Like you said, we seceded. We weren't liberating the place. We fought for our comfort. We won our self-determination and independence with the war, which I would call a positive outcome. But I don't think Americans today would rise up over an issue like this.

That said, I'm not sure if the rest of your post really supports the American Revolution. In fact, it makes its leaders sound exploitive and self-interested. I'm not sure I agree with your portrayal of men like Washington, but I'd certainly agree that the American revolutionaries were not a noble group by and large.

I didn't mention Washington by name, but I suppose I had him in mind. I just can't really relate to the Revolutionary War. It's always been the least interesting American war to me, as if it has little bearing on the country we are today. I mean it's nice being American, but our origins in liberty and freedom are kind of pitiful if you ask me.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Stretchy Werewolf

[Shan Zhu]

While there may be differences between Africa and the US situation, they were still both shrouded under the powers of colonialism.

Just because they had the same name does not mean that they were the same thing. American colonists were English citizens, privvy to all the rights of the English commonlaw. They had their own legislative bodies, their own militias, and a very strong say in what England did. After all, they did manage to get all the major English taxes except for the Tea Act repealed, no?

African natives, on the other hand, were essentially conquered people, with no rights, in whom the British had no vested interest. They were abused, disenfranchised, and exploited.

Again, comparing the situation of the American colonists to the situation of African natives is like comparing the position of Democrats to the position of Stalinist communists.

but it was still very much in their best interests to see that they did not like where the situation was headed and to do something about it.

Where were things headed? Canada, which was a colony until 1867, and which has still not completely severed legal ties with Britain, seems to have done just fine.

Besides, even at that time there was a well established history stating that colonialism would suck balls for everyone but the guy at the top.

You're using colonialism too broadly. Hawaii was essentially an American colony, and it worked out just fine for the colonists. African colonies =/= all colonies.

Its got everything to do with the American Revolution because many of the independence struggles of Africa have to do with shedding the same colonialism forces and the ill effects it left behind. Africa is just more of an extreme case.

They were not the same forces. You're comparing the tea-act to complete social, religious, and political domination. If we had remained a colony, we probably would have fared about how Canada did.

They really didn't like those taxes.

You mean the Tea Act? Which made tea cheaper?

The British repealed all other taxes before the war began. They were not unresponsive to our desires.

Of course there was the lack of representations,

Puerto Rico has no representation in the American government. They pay federal taxes--import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, et al. Is the US, then, an oppressive force to Puerto Rico?

If so, why have they refused to vote their independence for so long?

And yes, the U.S. was prosperous and free, but when you quantify that data with all "free labor"

What free labor?

quartering of troops

Well, when you're fighting a war to defend the very existence of the colonies, where are you supposed to put your troops?

multiple suppression laws (such as the re-active Intolerable/Coercive Acts)

If California decided tomorrow that it would destroy a major American freighter because it disagreed with American tax policies, costing the company and the government millions of dollars—and this after the same people have torched governors' houses, rioted through cities, giving death threats to British officials, essentially acting like terrorists—do you think the American government would respond kindly?

Frankly, the "Intolerable" Acts seem weak to me.

These measures took money away from colonists and severely limited some of the freedoms they moved across the pond to get in the first place.

The Puritans came in 1620 to escape the religious persecution of the Anglican Church. All other colonies were formed for political or economic reasons unrelated to British oppression.

In 1776, moreover, very few people would have cared about why their great-great-great grand-parents crossed the pond. Religious freedom had nothing to do with it. Political freedom only played a small role.

These measures took money away from colonists

Tea Act: Made tea cheaper.

Townshend Acts: Repealed

Stamp Act: Repealed

Intolerable Acts: Temporary and well-earned.

What measures?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Saint Nathan]

Well yeah, the whole point of the revolution was like a terrorist attack.

Also; Puerto Rico is US territory, not a state. Congress represents states, not territory. Where as Parliament has British territory represented. Thus there was no reason there should not have been be a US voice.

Other than that, all I know is what I learned in school, and that's mostly bullshit. So i'll guess here.

You leave a country for freedom, and you end up in a country that is controlled by the country you just left. Makes you a little on edge. Then taxes are raised, on little things, yes, but it's still unnecessary taxing. After a while, people get together and rebel against what they feel is wrong. What better way then to get rid of the tea that's being taxed? Big fuck you to England.

Brits get mad, Americans get madder, we kick brit ass with pitchforks and a smaller army. And FRANCE.

In other words, if people didn't give a shit about taxes as much as they do, and would understand that they help the country instead of bitch, none of this would ever happen.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Nathan Speed

[Phos]

Britain's laws and such went far beyond taxes. In addition to not being allowed to trade with any country but Britain, there was this whole laundry list of finished goods that were illegal to manufacture within the colonies. It wasn't just stuff like guns, the colonies weren't allowed to manufacture metal plows and shovels and other simple things. This lead to the absurd arrangement of raw materials being shipped to Britain, made into finished goods, and then shipped back (and often taxed) before they could be sold.

When people began to protest, Britain responded with a surge of troops by stationing more troops in the colonies. Rather than being like normal people and building barracks for the soldiers to live in, the British had them live in people's houses. This began before the war. I'm sure you can see how that would get annoying.

Somewhere in there, Britain also decreed that they could impose whatever regulations they wanted on the colonies. They also had this tenancy of shipping suspects to Britain to be tried.

Perhaps these taxes could have been justified had they actually gone to something that benefited the colonies, but they were being used to pay off Britain's war debts from fighting the French, and to cover the massive cost of keeping their African and Indian colonies thoroughly subjugated.

The Californian government taxes its people more than Britain taxed the colonies. Shall we go torch Arnold Schwarzenegger's house, then?

They voted for him, and the taxes go towards their self interests.

[Shan Zhu]

In addition to not being allowed to trade with any country but Britain, there was this whole laundry list of finished goods that were illegal to manufacture within the colonies

While I agree that these were bad ideas, it was also the typical mercantilism of the era. This was not a problem unique to the American colonies, nor was it an issue that went unresolved forever, nor was it the primary cause of American secession.

When people began to protest, Britain responded with a surge of troops by stationing more troops in the colonies.

If by "protest" you mean illegal rioting, death threats, and vandalism. Clearly, British fears were not unjustified.

Somewhere in there, Britain also decreed that they could impose whatever regulations they wanted on the colonies.

Within the restraints of British common-law, i.e. in the same way that Parliament would be able to regulate any other part of the Empire.

Rather than being like normal people and building barracks for the soldiers to live in, the British had them live in people's houses.

I'll grant that the Quartering Act was of a questionable legality, and that it was a burden on the colonies, but it hardly justified violent secession.

Also; Puerto Rico is US territory, not a state. Congress represents states, not territory. Where as Parliament has British territory represented. Thus there was no reason there should not have been be a US voice.

The Americans were represented by the basic colonial representatives. There was merely no specific Virginia ( or New York etc.) representative.

They voted for him, and the taxes go towards their self interests.

I would call "not being slaughtered by the French and Indians" an idea in the colonies' interests.

You leave a country for freedom

No American living in the US in 1776 left Britain for freedom, nor had their parents, nor had their great-grandparents. There is over 100 years between the exodus of the Puritans and the American Revolution.

and you end up in a country that is controlled by the country you just left

See above, but also note that no one ever meant to completely cut off ties with Britain. The Mayflower Compact, written by the Puritans of 1620, begins with

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

and ended with

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.[5][3]

Then taxes are raised, on little things, yes, but it's still unnecessary taxing.

Unnecessary? The American colonists had no direct taxes until this point. They were better off than the British citizens in Britain. Then, France threatens the colonies, and the British spend huge resources to defend the colonies from this attack. As a result, the British government is in debt, and needs a way to raise revenue.

Isn't it only logical that the British would look to the colonies, for whom this money was spent, to pay off the war-debt?

What better way then to get rid of the tea that's being taxed?

I disagree with the idea of an income tax. Do I have the right to rebel against the US?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Saint Nathan]

When people began to protest, Britain responded with a surge of troops by stationing more troops in the colonies. Rather than being like normal people and building barracks for the soldiers to live in, the British had them live in people's houses. This began before the war. I'm sure you can see how that would get annoying.

Isn't that also against the British Bill of Rights? You know, time of peace, can't house solders in people's residences?

[Sega DogTagz]

Just because they had the same name does not mean that they were the same thing. American colonists were English citizens, privvy to all the rights of the English commonlaw. They had their own legislative bodies, their own militias, and a very strong say in what England did. After all, they did manage to get all the major English taxes except for the Tea Act repealed, no?

African natives, on the other hand, were essentially conquered people, with no rights, in whom the British had no vested interest. They were abused, disenfranchised, and exploited.

Again, comparing the situation of the American colonists to the situation of African natives is like comparing the position of Democrats to the position of Stalinist communists.

Wait, lets back that up a second....

They were abused, disenfranchised, and exploited

Abused as in being forced to follow British policy where the colonies paid an increased proportion of the costs associated with keeping them in the Empire (and past wars)?

Disenfranchised like not having equal representation?

Exploited like Britain controlling the colonies trade routes and offering itself premium deals?

Those US colonial problems sound alot like what was going on in Africa. You made my point for me.

Just because they had the same name does not mean that they were the same thing. American colonists were English citizens, privvy to all the rights of the English commonlaw. They had their own legislative bodies, their own militias, and a very strong say in what England did.

Bah, the colonies had minimal impact on British commonlaw (more on that later). Also, even through they were English citizens, many of the revolution era colonists deeply believed that their British rights (as well as their Natural Rights) were being trampled on, thus limiting them to a situation not unlike the one being pushed in Africa.

You're using colonialism too broadly. Hawaii was essentially an American colony, and it worked out just fine for the colonists. African colonies =/= all colonies.

Again proving my point for me. Hawaii has turned out great for America. It is a travel hotspot. However for the natural Hawaiians it has been nothing short of disaster. The guy on the top comes out happy while the guy on the bottom gets shafted. That had been the history of colonialism in a nutshell, and the U.S. colonists had little reason to think that it wouldn't happen to them. They got out while the gettin was good.

After all, they did manage to get all the major English taxes except for the Tea Act repealed, no?

In the grand scheme of things, this meant nothing. Sure they repealled the Stamp act, but they did so by turning around and issuing the Declaratory Act which was even worse.

They basically slapped the colonies with one hand, took it back, only to slap them twice as hard with the other. The colonies had no influence. Britain just made a few appeasement moves here and there.

They were not the same forces. You're comparing the tea-act to complete social, religious, and political domination. If we had remained a colony, we probably would have fared about how Canada did.

The colonies were dominated to a much further extent than you seem to want to give them credit for.

The British repealed all other taxes before the war began. They were not unresponsive to our desires.

Too little, too late. Years of oppression doesn't go away because they pulled back on a few laws because they saw a war coming. On top of that, most of these repeals were empty because they paved the way for even worse and more oppressive legislation (as I stated before).

Puerto Rico has no representation in the American government. They pay federal taxes--import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, et al. Is the US, then, an oppressive force to Puerto Rico?

If so, why have they refused to vote their independence for so long?

Nothing is stopping them from putting it to a vote. When they want representation they will get it. In fact, I believe Obama stopped by there while he was campaigning. The welcome mat is certainly there, they will take it when they are ready.

What free labor?

uhhhhh....... Slavery. But that is a whole 'nother issue.

Well, when you're fighting a war to defend the very existence of the colonies, where are you supposed to put your troops?

If I was a colonist and I had a armed British dude in my living room demanding room and board and that I pay my taxes...... I wouldn't be happy about it.

If California decided tomorrow that it would destroy a major American freighter because it disagreed with American tax policies, costing the company and the government millions of dollars—and this after the same people have torched governors' houses, rioted through cities, giving death threats to British officials, essentially acting like terrorists—do you think the American government would respond kindly?

California has a ton more rights in the US than the colonies had back with Britain. They wouldn't burn crap when they disagree because they actively have a hand in making policy. Under colonialism, colonist felt like they were being shafted and could do nothing else about it.

Frankly, the "Intolerable" Acts seem weak to me.

To you, but times were different back then.

The Quebec Act was seen as a measure to rally French Catholics up to suppress British Americans. The Quartering Act made more room for British troops. The Boston Port Act collectively punished the entire town for the tea party.

These were not political maneuvers to be taken likely. In fact, the Quartering Act especially reeks of potential combat. Not to mention that some of them were pretty grevious violations of colonial charters and constitutional rights.

Tea Act: Made tea cheaper.

Townshend Acts: Repealed

Stamp Act: Repealed

Intolerable Acts: Temporary and well-earned.

What measures?

First off, the Intolerable Acts punished a town for the actions of a group of individuals (and established serious infringement on rights). The Stamp act was replaced with something even worse.

Then you could look at the measures Britian took to control trade. They held to power to ban the colonies from establishing trade routes. They could dictate the price of American goods by limiting whom they could sell too. In turn, Britian offered itself insider pricing. Minimizing the profits of colonists, and giving the crown a pretty sweet return. Much like they were doing in Africa actually.

Hows that for measures.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Patticus]

America seceded from the British Empire as a result of a revolutionary war. This war occured because, over a number of years, British politicians had (greedily) sought to pay for the nation's costly foreign wars by imposing high taxes on the American colonies; taxes which would normally have been managed by the Americans. A key result of this tax imposition (and one that proved a step too far for the already-disenfranchised American people) was that many of their other freedoms would also have to be removed.

The taxes, which have already been discussed, were hated by the British prime minister of the day, William Pitt the Elder; he knew what would eventually happen if the colonies weren't treated with due respect. He was much loved by the British and by the American people, he was a great man and wanted more than anything a reconciliation and repair of relations with the American colonists as soon as possible. This was still feasible in 1766. While he was healthy, he was able to control his party and his cabinet by exposing the corruption of MPs and defeating them in Commons debates. Things looked good.

Sadly, his health did not last. As his mental condition weakened, he was more and more absent from parliament, having to remain in his country estate in order to rest. Being absent from parliamentary affairs, he was much less 'in the loop' and was unable therefore to keep his cabinet or party in line, which lead directly to greedy and corrupt members of parliament being able to impose heavy taxes on the American colonies and remove much of their beloved autonomy.

Over a number of years, as this went on and Mr. Pitt's mental health continued in a downward spiral (partly as a result of his intense anguish at the events unfolding, which he foresaw and could have prevented had his health remained good) the British and American people grew apart. By the time war broke out, reconciliation was impossible (once the dream of secession breaks out, it is very difficult to remove it and maintain good relations), and even had the war been won by Britain it wouldn't be long before more conflicts broke out.

Secession was by no means inevitable until Pitt's health failed, but once it did it was both inevitable and wholly justified.

[Tornado]

Unnecessary? The American colonists had no direct taxes until this point.

They also had no real voice in government that controlled them, so it didn't matter that they paid no taxes.

Then, France threatens the colonies, and the British spend huge resources to defend the colonies from this attack. As a result, the British government is in debt, and needs a way to raise revenue.

Britian began taxing the colonies because they were cash strapped because they spent most of the 1700s fighting pretty much everybody. They did indeed fight Native Americans and French in North America prior to the American Revolution, but that was a small part of a war with France that had at that point already been going on for 5 years.

[Patticus]

Pitt knew full well that the government's best bet for deficit recovery lay not in America but in India. There, the East India Company's corrupt directors and officers had brought that most august of firms to near bankruptcy.

If London had assumed its debts and cleaned its ethical house, the government would've stood to make eventual profit that would've been more than enough to bring its war debts into the realm of managability, while concurrently offering a way out of the large-scale conflict Pitt was certain the Americans intended to offer the mother country if new taxation programs were pressed on them.

[Tornado]

Wasn't there also a war in India between England and India at around the same time?

[Shan Zhu]

(once the dream of secession breaks out, it is very difficult to remove it and maintain good relations)

Though this may be true, does that necessarily justify the dream of secession?

This gets at the root of my problem with secession. Though the British did infringe on American rights occasionally, as with the Quartering Act, and though the taxes may have been burdensome, were any of these grievances so weighty as to justify armed rebellion? Did the Quartering Act justify thousands of deaths, the complete destruction of the existing government of over a century, and the desolation of both the British and American economies? Did, in short, a few illegal and mildly* oppressive acts justify a long, bloody, costly war?

*by modern American federal standards, and the standards of other British colonies.

I'm not suggesting that the colonists should have sat back and taken it. I am suggesting, however, that they should have taken a more peaceful and diplomatic approach to altering British policy--essentially the approach of the later colonies. Instead of dumping British tea into the ocean, the Americans could have simply continued to boycott the taxed product. As the repeal of the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts proved, the British were not unresponsive to such tactics. Instead of torching governors' houses, tarring and feathering British officials, handing out death threats to magistrates, et al, they might have protested peacefully--non-violently but non-cooperatively, as Ghandi would later put it.

In short, if there had been no Boston Tea Party, would there have been the Intolerable Acts? If there had been no rioting, talk or rebellion, or arson, would there have been a Quartering Act?

The Quartering Act might have been illegal, and the taxation without representation might have been unjustified, but I disagree with the American income tax, and I believe the Iraq War to have been an illegitimate, unilateral decision. I may protest those ideas as loudly as I want within my liberties, but if I abused a federal official, or if my state began to threaten the federal government with rebellion, I wouldn't expect to unpunished. Though the colonies may have had legitimate complaints, their violent response, the culmination of which was the revolution, was not justified, and though it may have eventually become inevitable, this was as much a fault of the colonists as of the British.

This war occured because, over a number of years, British politicians had (greedily) sought to pay for the nation's costly foreign wars by imposing high taxes on the American colonies; taxes which would normally have been managed by the Americans.

As mentioned earlier, most of these taxes were repealed. Those that were not were not weighty enough to justify armed rebellion against the Empire.

The taxes, which have already been discussed, were hated by the British prime minister of the day, William Pitt the Elder; he knew what would eventually happen if the colonies weren't treated with due respect. He was much loved by the British and by the American people, he was a great man and wanted more than anything a reconciliation and repair of relations with the American colonists as soon as possible.

I agree with you on Pitt.

which lead directly to greedy and corrupt members of parliament being able to impose heavy taxes on the American colonies

Which heavy taxes?

and remove much of their beloved autonomy.

Apart from temporary and reactionary laws made against the Massachusetts colony, how did the British infringe on America's lawful autonomy? What did it do, for example, to regulate the political freedom of colonies like Georgia, or North Carolina, or those colonies which did not openly and illegally threaten British sovereignty? Though the Declaratory Act did expand British power, it did not posit any authority which the British had not traditionally held over their colonies.

Abused as in being forced to follow British policy where the colonies paid an increased proportion of the costs associated with keeping them in the Empire (and past wars)?

No, abused as in being forced out of your traditional way of life, enslaved (prior to the illegalization thereof), and deprived of all legal rights.

Taxation's just part of belonging to a country. Even when illegitimate, It's hardly abuse.

Disenfranchised like not having equal representation?

No, disenfranchised as in having your nation and government destroyed in favor of imperial rule. The colonists retained a huge degree of self-rule--in fact, a great deal more than American states and territories enjoy today.

Exploited like Britain controlling the colonies trade routes and offering itself premium deals?

No, exploited as in... Well, everything I've said so far, plus the British commercial ventures--essentially, the British got what they wanted from the African natives without offering citizenship or any other significant benefit in return. While the mercantilist policies of the British Empire in the American colonies were botched, they were hardly abusive considering the rights, privileges, and success enjoyed by the American colonies during the colonial period.

Bah, the colonies had minimal impact on British commonlaw (more on that later).

True. No individual body had a significant impact on the laws which had been developed and fine-tuned since the days of the Magna Carte. But that's not my point. My point is that the day-to-day laws that shaped the lives of individual colonists were primarily determined by their local governments, which were run not by imperial officials (for the most part, though the Intolerable Acts altered this in some areas temporarily), but by locally elected/appointed officials. Thus, they enjoyed a remarkable level of autonomy, even during the worst periods of British oppression (except for Massachusetts, which was practically in open rebellion by the time the British really cracked down).

We tend to focus a lot on the New England colonies, mostly because that's where the colonists commit arson, spread propaganda that would be damned as a "clear and present threat" under current American law, and abused British officials. What about those colonies that were more or less obedient until the Revolution? What did their autonomy look like?

In the grand scheme of things, this meant nothing. Sure they repealled the Stamp act, but they did so by turning around and issuing the Declaratory Act which was even worse.

They basically slapped the colonies with one hand, took it back, only to slap them twice as hard with the other. The colonies had no influence. Britain just made a few appeasement moves here and there.

The Stamp Act was a direct tax on all paper goods on the colony. The Declaratory Act merely said that the British government had the right to impose whatever laws it chose on the colonies--an idea that had gone more or less without saying until this point. I refuse to accept that a declaration of previously assumed rights is worse than a direct tax.

California has a ton more rights in the US than the colonies had back with Britain. They wouldn't burn crap when they disagree because they actively have a hand in making policy. Under colonialism, colonist felt like they were being shafted and could do nothing else about it.

Nevertheless, do you really think that a relative lack of direct representation justifies the violent, terror-based tactics of the colonists? And did the British not have the right to punish those who broke the law, destroyed their property, and threatened their officials?

uhhhhh....... Slavery. But that is a whole 'nother issue.

The colonists were not slaves. They were slave-holders. Actually, Britain abolished slavery before America got around to it. This is completely irrelevant to whether the colonists were justified in secession.

If I was a colonist and I had a armed British dude in my living room demanding room and board and that I pay my taxes...... I wouldn't be happy about it.

Yes, well I'm an American, and I'm not happy that one of my presidents was questionably elected, and that he then illegally went to war. Nor am I happy that my country has spent centuries slaughtering and displacing natives, that it now does little to integrate them back into society, and that it continues to push an imperialist agenda in its approach to foreign affairs. I am not happy that my privacy rights as a citizen are threatened by illegal surveillance and wire-tapping, or that my rights to free speech are being slightened by an increasingly overbearing set of hate-speech laws. Much of this is outside of the control of the American electorate, in the hands of men who are either appointed or illegitimately elected, and many of the people they rule do not have a say in their decisions or elections.

I don't agree with any of that, but I don't see it as a legitimate reason to take up arms, kill thousands of people, and completely throw off my government. Again, the colonists had legitimate complaints, but they were not so grievous as to justify a war.

The Quebec Act was seen as a measure to rally French Catholics up to suppress British Americans

The Quebec act increased the size of Quebec, allowed Quebecian Catholics to hold office, defined an imperial federal structure for that colony, and restored French private law. Although paranoid colonists may have seen this as reactionary to the Boston Tea-party, it ultimately had no effect on Massachusetts or any other American colony. It merely expanded French/Catholic rights in Quebec while forcing a stronger imperial hand into the affairs of the Canadian colony.

The Quartering Act made more room for British troops.

I'll admit that bringing more troops to the colonies was unwise, but I don't think it was unpredictable or unjustified. When a greater number of Iraqi or Afghani radicals rise up to create turmoil in those countries, the (largely successful) American response has been to increase the number of troops in those unstable countries. The British were merely responding to what they viewed as a criminal threat to their lawful sovereignty in their territories.

Although, the quartering of troops itself was illegal by British common-law. I'll admit that this was a grievance, but it was not significant enough to justify war.

The Boston Port Act collectively punished the entire town for the tea party.

Much as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland during the Civil War punished an entire state for the insurgent actions of a few, and much as UN sanctions punish entire countries for the actions of their leaders. Because the British government could not specifically punish the criminals, it sought to pressure the local governments into giving up the criminals and into paying their debts--a typical political move then and now. Though perhaps questionable, this is not the kind of thing that should lead to armed rebellion.

They held to power to ban the colonies from establishing trade routes.

The US and British governments still have this right (see below). They merely do not choose to exercise it because they recognize it as bad economic policy. Instead, they use more indirect methods to regulate trade, i.e. tariffs and taxes.

They could dictate the price of American goods by limiting whom they could sell too.

The American Interstate Commerce Commission maintains the power to control intrastate rates on many goods and services in order to create a uniform interstate rate. This is a time-tested policy, challenged many times between 1900 and 1950, always upheld by the Supreme Court. It is based on more or less the same principles as the British regulation of colonial trade.

The federal governments of many countries, including the US and UK, have and continue to manipulate this indirectly through tariffs and other trade regulations.

The UN continues to impose trade sanctions on countries that pose a threat to human rights or to international security. A controversial issue now is whether the United States can ethically continue to trade with a nation as abusive as China.

In turn, Britian offered itself insider pricing. Minimizing the profits of colonists, and giving the crown a pretty sweet return.

The idea was not to minimize the profits of the colonies. In fact, some of these regulations, such as the tea-act, actually drove rates down in the colonies.

The popular idea at the time was that a nation would be most prosperous if it did not trade with foreign nations, but maintained a completely domestic economic system. The whole reason imperialist nations created colonies was to create an artificial system of trade by which they could keep capital flowing without becoming dependent on any other nation. This only works, unfortunately, if colonies are only permitted to trade with their mother countries. The idea, however faulty, was that the entire empire--colonies and motherland--would benefit from this mercantilist system. Mercantilist regulation, unlike certain specific taxes, was not meant to be exploitive of the colonies.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Patticus]

Though this may be true, does that necessarily justify the dream of secession?

I believe so; Once the 'fire' is started, it will burn for generations. It would have inspired many subsequent destructive revolts (and retaliatory oppressive regimes) had the revolutionary war been won by Britain (as well it might have been - its outcome was far from a foregone conclusion), and we most probably would have seen characters like U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee become figureheads of the formenting revolution as opposed to Washington and, er... other contemporary generals.

I don't think Britain could have held America for more than a century after the revolutionary war or its immediate precursor events. By that time the clock was counting down to independence.

I'm not suggesting that the colonists should have sat back and taken it. I am suggesting, however, that they should have taken a more peaceful and diplomatic approach to altering British policy--essentially the approach of the later colonies. Instead of dumping British tea into the ocean, the Americans could have simply continued to boycott the taxed product. As the repeal of the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts proved, the British were not unresponsive to such tactics. Instead of torching governors' houses, tarring and feathering British officials, handing out death threats to magistrates, et al, they might have protested peacefully--non-violently but non-cooperatively, as Ghandi would later put it.

The approach taken toward colonies in later decades was the very one Pitt wished to take toward the Americas, but was unable to act upon because of his spiralling deterioration. It took British politicians decades to learn what he already knew and (temporarily) save the rest of the empire.

As for the tax repeals, they were Pitt's work as well (South Carolinians even erected a statue of Pitt after the Stamp Act was repealed), and while reconciliation after those was also still possible, it depended pretty much entirely on that one man's (failing) ability to keep both his government and the British crown in check. As it happens, he was unable to maintain his control on the government and, well, you know what happened.

Which heavy taxes?

I was referring to the taxes imposed following the Seven Years' War in general. In comparison to the tax rates seen before and during the war, they do seem to me to be quite heavy.

Apart from temporary and reactionary laws made against the Massachusetts colony, how did the British infringe on America's lawful autonomy? What did it do, for example, to regulate the political freedom of colonies like Georgia, or North Carolina, or those colonies which did not openly and illegally threaten British sovereignty? Though the Declaratory Act did expand British power, it did not posit any authority which the British had not traditionally held over their colonies.

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this one... so I'll refer you to this highly informative portion of an essay written by Caleb Carr, titled William Pitt the Elder and the Avoidance of the American Revolution, published in the book What If? America: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. It's a seriously goddamn awesome essay, and the primary base of my arguments in this topic.

When ominous debt seized Britain's economy following the conclusion of the Seven Years' War, many British ministers and representatives, along with a sizable number of British citizens, began to view drastically increased tax revenue from the colonies as an appropriate way out of their economic fix. The multitheatred conflict had, after all, been an "imperial" endeavour, fought to defend and expand Britain's overseas possessions; surely the occupants of those possessions could not object to shouldering the greater part of the cost of the undertakings? This line of thinking, although seductively simple, ignored several important realities.

First, the collection of increased taxes in the colonies meant tightened imperial administration of those far-off places, and that would mean effective repeal of the unofficial policy of "salutary neglect," in which such colonies as those of North America had existed prior to the Seven Years' War. Yet this practise, to the colonists, had become something very much more than simply a loose political and economic bond - it had become one of the principal reasons that they were loyal to their home country, which allowed them to form their own assemblies, elect their own leader, and even determine many of their intercolony tariff systems. To ask them to surrender such privileges in the name of imperial considerations - to ask North America to surrender money and freedoms so that London could bail out the East India Company, as the thinking in the thirteen Atlantic coastal colonies went at the time - was to remove what made the British Empire distinct from its openly and ruthlessly exploitative rivals. Furthermore, such a position avoided one central point: the world war that Britain had successfully conducted had not been fought in the interests of the colonies alone, but for those of manufacturing towns and firms at home, as well, which needed new markets for their goods and greater supplies of raw materials with which to make them. The empire was an integrated system, not a series of component parts - or, at least, London had always been wise to operate it as such, quietly aware of and perturbed by the fact that the colonies had a much greater chance of achieving true self-sufficiency than did the mother country.

Perhaps the most galling to colonists who were suddenly asked to pay a greater proportion of the costs of empire was the fact that it was never once hinted that they would in return be granted political representation in the central British government, and with the kind of power and voice that might allow them to defend their own interests within the system. The empire, said George III and the ministers that replaced Pitt's government, was run by king and Parliament; colonies might conduct some of their own affairs on their own, but such imperial questions as rates of taxation would be settled by London and by its appointed agents. And from 1763 onwards, word from London (delivered by generally arrogant messengers) was that the days of salutary neglect, low taxes, and free protection against Indian tribes and French troublemakers by British troops was over.

Britain's rich American colonies had never agitated for greater political power and had remained loyal to the crown precisely because no onerous military, political or tax obligations had been required of them: industry and trade had been the mutually profitable bond that had connected the colonies and mother country, and the arrangement had been for the most part entirely equitable. If taxes were now to be raised and colonial administration to be tightened - to the point that regular army troops would be stationed in the colonies and billeted among civilians to ensure compliance - then the colonies would resemble less what they had been until then, and more Britain itself: all of which would have been acceptable, if the colonists had been given the voting rights and the representation in parliament that Brirish citizens enjoyed. But George III (for it was he who believed most sincerely in an extremist policy, though many colonists refused to believe as much) was adamant: the colonists would have the responsibilities of Englishmen, but not the privileges. They had been protected by the crown, just as indentured servants or slaves might be protected by their masters, and they should, indeed must, offer services for that protection in return, without giving any more voice to ideas about "rights" than a slave would do.

[Sega DogTagz]

*by modern American federal standards, and the standards of other British colonies.

Why do you keep comparing things to modern standards? You can’t quantify past events with modern rational. Things aren’t the same and you can’t compare them they are.

I'm not suggesting that the colonists should have sat back and taken it. I am suggesting, however, that they should have taken a more peaceful and diplomatic approach to altering British policy--essentially the approach of the later colonies. Instead of dumping British tea into the ocean, the Americans could have simply continued to boycott the taxed product. As the repeal of the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts proved, the British were not unresponsive to such tactics. Instead of torching governors' houses, tarring and feathering British officials, handing out death threats to magistrates, et al, they might have protested peacefully--non-violently but non-cooperatively, as Ghandi would later put it.

Those riots were after years of dissent. And you are right that the British were not unresponsive to the colony situation. They merely responded with bigger and bigger penalties. Then they responded with deadly force against an unwieldy, but largely unarmed crowd in the Boston Massacre.

In short, if there had been no Boston Tea Party, would there have been the Intolerable Acts? If there had been no rioting, talk or rebellion, or arson, would there have been a Quartering Act?

And if there had been no egregious violation of colonist rights, than there would not have been a Tea Party in t he first place. The revolution process is re-active not proactive. Britain had to be in the wrong first, and then it would escalate from there.

As mentioned earlier, most of these taxes were repealed. Those that were not were not weighty enough to justify armed rebellion against the Empire.

There was always another bill to replace it though. All this negativity piled on for years. Dissent was strong within the colonies and it did not take much to sway the revolutionary mindset to war.

You make it sound like that the fact that they eventually repealed some bills instantly make them okay and the colonist shouldn’t hold grudges.

You also can’t argue those were not “weighty” enough to justify armed rebellion because history tells us that the colonists obviously thought that it was. Their perception is all that mattered.

No, abused as in being forced out of your traditional way of life, enslaved (prior to the illegalization thereof), and deprived of all legal rights.

Africa is just a more extreme example. The US colonists had every reason to believe that this was the direction they were heading. That is just the history of colonialism.

Taxation's just part of belonging to a country. Even when illegitimate, It's hardly abuse.

Colonists would consider the blatant disregard of their rights as “abusive”

No, disenfranchised as in having your nation and government destroyed in favor of imperial rule. The colonists retained a huge degree of self-rule--in fact, a great deal more than American states and territories enjoy today.

Much of Africa had no formal government to destroy. The real problems came from Britain not understanding the tribal function of the land and drawing up colonies that had no regard for the people living there. While the U.S. colonists were spared this, I don’t think anyone would argue that they weren’t disenfranchised with Britain.

No, exploited as in... Well, everything I've said so far, plus the British commercial ventures--essentially, the British got what they wanted from the African natives without offering citizenship or any other significant benefit in return. While the mercantilist policies of the British Empire in the American colonies were botched, they were hardly abusive considering the rights, privileges, and success enjoyed by the American colonies during the colonial period. .

I disagree. In fact I say that the US colonies were even more exploited because Britain had more stuff to infringe on. Both colonial systems were set up so Britain could profit on the raw materials of the colonies. The U.S. colonies had more rights that were up to be take away. In the end, they weren't in a situation too dissimilar to the African colonies.

True. No individual body had a significant impact on the laws which had been developed and fine-tuned since the days of the Magna Carte. But that's not my point. My point is that the day-to-day laws that shaped the lives of individual colonists were primarily determined by their local governments, which were run not by imperial officials (for the most part, though the Intolerable Acts altered this in some areas temporarily), but by locally elected/appointed officials. Thus, they enjoyed a remarkable level of autonomy, even during the worst periods of British oppression (except for Massachusetts, which was practically in open rebellion by the time the British really cracked down).

But the colonist also held offense to the idea that the British held the right to take away that freedom. In the grand scheme of things, they had no power to govern. The colonist had issue with this, so the situation only bred more and more distrust.

The Stamp Act was a direct tax on all paper goods on the colony. The Declaratory Act merely said that the British government had the right to impose whatever laws it chose on the colonies--an idea that had gone more or less without saying until this point. I refuse to accept that a declaration of previously assumed rights is worse than a direct tax.

If you think a little tax is worse than the Declaratory Act than I cannot accept your humanity then. There is little worse than someone looking you in your face and telling you to accept the fact that they own you. The need for that basic freedom is what makes us human, especially considering the revolutionary mindset of the population.

The Declaratory Act was the biggest screw you they could make.

Nevertheless, do you really think that a relative lack of direct representation justifies the violent, terror-based tactics of the colonists? And did the British not have the right to punish those who broke the law, destroyed their property, and threatened their officials?

This is perception based. The colonists obviously thought the culmination of factors and history of colonialism was worth open rebellion. I guess this is why your original question is so complicated. Your trying to justify why the measure was unjustified while history tells us that the people believed it was.

You can play devils advocate to try to shed some light, but after a certain extent you’re just kicking a dead horse.

I don't agree with any of that, but I don't see it as a legitimate reason to take up arms, kill thousands of people, and completely throw off my government. Again, the colonists had legitimate complaints, but they were not so grievous as to justify a war.

You

YOU don’t feel like that justifies war. YOU don’t have the revolutionary mindset that they did. YOU haven’t been suppressed. YOU are not desperate. YOU are not hungry enough for that change. Most of all, YOU did not live in those times.

YOU is vastly different from THEM.

The Quebec act increased the size of Quebec, allowed Quebecian Catholics to hold office, defined an imperial federal structure for that colony, and restored French private law. Although paranoid colonists may have seen this as reactionary to the Boston Tea-party, it ultimately had no effect on Massachusetts or any other American colony. It merely expanded French/Catholic rights in Quebec while forcing a stronger imperial hand into the affairs of the Canadian colony.

What it did, isn’t nearly as important as what it was perceived to do. Especially at that point of time.

For example, no one would vote for the "Forget September 11th Act of 2002" even if it only actually contained some basic procedural stuff.

Although, the quartering of troops itself was illegal by British common-law. I'll admit that this was a grievance, but it was not significant enough to justify war.

It doesn’t have to. It was simply just one more thing to throw onto the pile.

The US and British governments still have this right (see below). They merely do not choose to exercise it because they recognize it as bad economic policy. Instead, they use more indirect methods to regulate trade, i.e. tariffs and taxes.

And the countries that are currently getting shafted by such practices are quite vocally upset. The colonies were upset and added these controls to the pile of crap to justify the war.

The popular idea at the time was that a nation would be most prosperous if it did not trade with foreign nations, but maintained a completely domestic economic system

Popular for Britain. But easily an abomination for the colonies, just like the history of colonization said it would.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Sega DogTagz

[Shan Zhu]

I have to go to dinner Sega~ I'll respond when I get back.

I believe so; Once the 'fire' is started, it will burn for generations. It would have inspired many subsequent destructive revolts (and retaliatory oppressive regimes) had the revolutionary war been won by Britain (as well it might have been - its outcome was far from a foregone conclusion), and we most probably would have seen characters like U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee become figureheads of the formenting revolution as opposed to Washington and, er... other contemporary generals.

I don't think Britain could have held America for more than a century after the revolutionary war or its immediate precursor events. By that time the clock was counting down to independence.

I'll agree that independence was inevitable, but that's not my point. Was war inevitable, or mightn't a softer approach on the part of the colonies have eventually led to a more peaceful resolution?

My question is not "did the colonists deserve independence," but "were the colonists justified in pursuing that independence violently."

I was referring to the taxes imposed following the Seven Years' War in general. In comparison to the tax rates seen before and during the war, they do seem to me to be quite heavy.

Granted, but as you pointed out, Pitt managed to have most of those taxes repealed. It sounded as though you were referring to taxes that came into being after Pitt lost control of his party and the Parliament.

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this one... so I'll refer you to this highly informative portion of an essay written by Caleb Carr, titled William Pitt the Elder and the Avoidance of the American Revolution, published in the book What If? America: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. It's a seriously goddamn awesome essay, and the primary base of my arguments in this topic.

And an interesting essay it is. It certainly lays out the colonial grievances. That said, I'm still not convinced that a military response on the part of the colonists was necessary, nor am I convinced that England would have been nearly so oppressive had the colonists not behaved as criminals and terrorists.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Shan Zhu]

edit: ach :x I DP'd by mistake. Sorry! Is it possible to merge posts?

You

YOU don’t feel like that justifies war. YOU don’t have the revolutionary mindset that they did. YOU haven’t been suppressed. YOU are not desperate. YOU are not hungry enough for that change. Most of all, YOU did not live in those times.

YOU is vastly different from THEM.

Hitler was justified in Hitler's mind.

Ultimately, this debate is not about what Britain thought, or the revolutionaries thought, or what the loyalists thought. It's about what we think about what they did. Therefore, my opinion is as valid as yours.

You also can’t argue those were not “weighty” enough to justify armed rebellion because history tells us that the colonists obviously thought that it was. Their perception is all that mattere

German history justified Jewish genocide to Hitler. I am arguing about whether violent secession was justified from our standpoint, not whether it was justified to the colonists. If we're arguing that, then the answer is obvious--it was ok as far as the revolutionaries were concerned, but not as far as the loyalists went. The British were right out.

Kind of a pointless debate, isn't it?

Why do you keep comparing things to modern standards? You can’t quantify past events with modern rational. Things aren’t the same and you can’t compare them they are.

If we accept a level of oppression as acceptable now, what circumstances made it different then? Show me the specific differences, or your argument is invalid. I could just as easily argue that because today is different from yesterday, I cannot take any ideas from yesterday to guide my actions today.

Those riots were after years of dissent.

Narp! They were an immediate reaction to the Stamp Act, the first of the British direct taxes.

And if there had been no egregious violation of colonist rights, than there would not have been a Tea Party in t he first place.

Bad policies do not justify reactive terrorism. If Ghandhi had shot the British officials he disagreed with, he wouldn't have been as justified as he was under his non-cooperative pacifism, would he?

You make it sound like that the fact that they eventually repealed some bills instantly make them okay and the colonist shouldn’t hold grudges.

My argument is purely that the British were responsive to non-violent American protests. By the time the Revolution came along, the Americans only suffered one direct tax, and it worked in favor of the colonists.

Africa is just a more extreme example. The US colonists had every reason to believe that this was the direction they were heading. That is just the history of colonialism.

No they didn't. African history hadn't worked itself out at that point. African colonization had absolutely nothing to do with why the colonists rebelled.

Colonists would consider the blatant disregard of their rights as “abusive”

Stalin considered the existence of political dissidents to be unacceptable. Again, we're not arguing about what they thought, but about what we can agree upon as reasonable.

I disagree. In fact I say that the US colonies were even more exploited because Britain had more stuff to infringe on. Both colonial systems were set up so Britain could profit on the raw materials of the colonies. The U.S. colonies had more rights that were up to be take away.

Let me list some basic rights enjoyed and uninfringed upon by the English in 1775.

-The right to a trial. Perhaps it was a trial in Britain, but at least it was a trial.

-The right to labor or not labor as you choose—to be a silver-smith, pastor, farmer, shipwright, or what have you, so long as you can make it in that field.

-The right to maintain local militias and to bear private arms, so long as those arms did not pose an immediate threat to the British (i.e. if you attack the British, you forfeit that right).

-Freedom of Religion

-Freedom of the Press. The Revolution only happened because the British allowed such pamphlets as Common Sense to be published

This was not the position of Africa.

In the end, they weren't in a situation too dissimilar to the African colonies.

I've argued this ad-nauseam. If you're going to continue to argue that quartering troops and laying direct taxes is the same as slavery, I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you here.

That said, let me remind you again that not all colonies fared as the African colonies did. Canada, Australia, Hawaii, and even India are examples of colonies that either achieved their independence peacefully without suffering what Africa suffered, or else became so well integrated into their motherlands that they became full states in that motherland.

In the grand scheme of things, they had no power to govern. The colonist had issue with this, so the situation only bred more and more distrust.

The colonists were British citizens and were therefore subjects of the English government. Although the British may have mishandled the situation, they had every right and power to govern.

If you think a little tax is worse than the Declaratory Act than I cannot accept your humanity then

*tear*

Well if you're going to disagree with me, I shall call you a dirty little monkey Dx

If you think a little tax is worse than the Declaratory Act than I cannot accept your humanity then. There is little worse than someone looking you in your face and telling you to accept the fact that they own you. The need for that basic freedom is what makes us human, especially considering the revolutionary mindset of the population.

They weren't saying "we own you." They were saying "we're your government, and we have the right to act like it." It's the difference between the federal government saying "Congress has the right to impose any law it sees fit upon the states to ensure the stability of these United States," (an idea in the Constitution) and "The citizens of the United States are slaves to the Congress." Although a Bill of Rights is necessary to restrain that power, it still isn't slavery.

This is perception based. The colonists obviously thought the culmination of factors and history of colonialism was worth open rebellion

The revolutionaries thought it was ok. The British thought it was not. The loyalists could have done without it. The Native Americans wanted them all to go to Hell.

Now that we've gotten their views out of the way, let's focus on our own.

edit: The American colonists were quite content to be colonists until the British began to levy taxes. The "history of colonialism" (and most of the bad came after the American Revolution anyway) was not an important influence in why the colonists rebelled. Also, not all colonies failed.

What it did, isn’t nearly as important as what it was perceived to do.

Nonsense. What's important is whether it was in any way harmful to the colonies. If it wasn't harmful, it doesn't help to justify secession. If perception is all that matters, then Hitler was justified in what he did because he believed he was justified.

And the countries that are currently getting shafted by such practices are quite vocally upset. The colonies were upset and added these controls to the pile of crap to justify the war.

I notice you're ignoring my ICC and UN arguments.

Also, is it wrong to react to dangerous governments with trade restrictions? Or would you prefer that we go to war with them? Or shall we do nothing and let them accrue power and wealth until they can become even more dangerous?

Popular for Britain. But easily an abomination for the colonies, just like the history of colonization said it would.

Mercantilism had been a policy in the colonies long before the colonists themselves began to feel irritated. They were fine with those regulations until Britain lay direct taxes on them. Trade restrictions were not a serious problem in the eyes of most colonists. Direct taxes were.

And this nebulous "history of colonialism" requires elaboration. You still haven't explained the existence of successful colonies, or how the colonists were supposed to know that African colonization would fail as they were then direct participants in its success.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Tornado]

Hitler was justified in Hitler's mind.

German history justified Jewish genocide to Hitler.

Seriously?

Bad policies do not justify reactive terrorism.

Says you. There are plenty of examples where reactive terrorism has made things better than they were before. And the British were doing a bit more than "bad policies" by the time things had gotten to the breaking point. They were more along the lines of "We honestly don't give a shit what the colonists want."

If Ghandhi had shot the British officials he disagreed with, he wouldn't have been as justified as he was under his non-cooperative pacifism, would he?

He would have been just as justified, actually. He just wouldn't be as well known today. Ghandi doesn't really apply to this discussion anyways because the world was very different in the 1700s than it was in the 1950s.

By the time the Revolution came along, the Americans only suffered one direct tax, and it worked in favor of the colonists.

It was a tax imposed against their will that they had no say in the creation of that was largely irrelevant to anything England had done for them. It makes absolutely no difference whether it was beneficial to the colonists or not.

Stalin considered the existence of political dissidents to be unacceptable. Again, we're not arguing about what they thought, but about what we can agree upon as reasonable.

What.

The colonists were British citizens and were therefore subjects of the English government. Although the British may have mishandled the situation, they had every right and power to govern.

You keep throwing that around like it is an objective fact. It really isn't. The British had every right to govern the colonies. The colonists, being British citizens, felt that they had every right to take part in that government that controlled them. The British disagreed, so the colonists revolted, first peacefully, then violently when the British responded with even harsher restrictions. I really don't see the problem.

-Freedom of the Press. The Revolution only happened because the British allowed such pamphlets as Common Sense to be published

Common Sense was published well over half a year after the war started, so I really doubt that the colonists gave a damn what the British government thought at the point. Most of the revolutionary papers before the war started were written under the radar, as well.

They weren't saying "we own you." They were saying "we're your government, and we have the right to act like it." It's the difference between the federal government saying "Congress has the right to impose any law it sees fit upon the states to ensure the stability of these United States," (an idea in the Constitution) and "The citizens of the United States are slaves to the Congress." Although a Bill of Rights is necessary to restrain that power, it still isn't slavery.

It isn't like that at all. Last I checked, you were allowed to vote for people to make the laws in United States Congress. The Colonists enjoyed no such luxury.

Mercantilism had been a policy in the colonies long before the colonists themselves began to feel irritated.

You act as if that isn't a problem already. Mercantilism is an incredibly unfair system. The simple fact that no one stood up to the system before the colonists does not make the colonists belligerents.

They were fine with those regulations until Britain lay direct taxes on them. Trade restrictions were not a serious problem in the eyes of most colonists. Direct taxes were.

Again, you act as if that isn't a problem by itself. Direct taxes on a the group without representation in the government that imposed them in the first place. How can that possibly sound fair to you?

And in actuality, the trade restrictions were a big problem with the colonists.

My question is not "did the colonists deserve independence," but "were the colonists justified in pursuing that independence violently."

Were the British justified in the Boston Massacre, which came as a result of the colonists trying to protest (somewhat) nonviolently?

And yes, regardless, they were justified in doing so in whatever way they saw fit. They tried peaceful solutions. The British simply were not interested at the time in paying any attention to what the colonists wanted.

And an interesting essay it is. It certainly lays out the colonial grievances. That said, I'm still not convinced that a military response on the part of the colonists was necessary, nor am I convinced that England would have been nearly so oppressive had the colonists not behaved as criminals and terrorists.

So what you are saying is that you think it would have been better for the colonists, after the Boston Massacre mind you, to continue to peacefully protest. I can agree with that, but that doesn't make the colonist's actions wrong. Keep in mind that war is a valid form of diplomacy.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Tornado

[Shan Zhu]

Well, I suppose I might as well throw in the towel xD;; Yes, clearly Americans were justified in their secession.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Fieuline Tabby

[Sega DogTagz]

Ultimately, this debate is not about what Britain thought, or the revolutionaries thought, or what the loyalists thought. It's about what we think about what they did. Therefore, my opinion is as valid as yours.

Our conversation can’t be about what “we” think they did. In the end, both sides will have their own justifications (when was the last war where one side admitted they were in the wrong during the thing?).

Seriously we’re arguing about our specific perceptions of past events that were molded over a time period we don’t fully understand. So yes, your opinion is as valid as mine, but both of our opinions are generally screwed under this scope.

Let’s not let that stop us though. Best way to learn is to participate

German history justified Jewish genocide to Hitler. I am arguing about whether violent secession was justified from our standpoint, not whether it was justified to the colonists. If we're arguing that, then the answer is obvious--it was ok as far as the revolutionaries were concerned, but not as far as the loyalists went. The British were right out.

Kind of a pointless debate, isn't it?

Yeah, it is. But that is my viewpoint of justifiability. I call an action justifiable if the person committing it had a justifiable reason for committing it. After all Justifiability is subjective to each person. (that is not to say the events or tactics used in the process are good or bad, just the end result, criminology and morals are a different matter). Hitler was justified because he believed in his end result (again not to say it was good).

My application of Justified is quite different from yours. (I think you already figured out that I like to keep things as specific as possible… in fact that why I disagreed with you in that other topic). Funny how our angles gives us completely different viewpoints.

I’ll make an effort to see things your way if you do the same to see things my way.

If we accept a level of oppression as acceptable now, what circumstances made it different then? Show me the specific differences, or your argument is invalid. I could just as easily argue that because today is different from yesterday, I cannot take any ideas from yesterday to guide my actions today.

Mindset is different. We accept a level of oppression because we lack the fire and leadership of the people back then. When our mainstream sources call foul and scream about undermining the government *cough*FoxNews/Rush L.*cough* they get ridiculed and singled out. The writers of the dissents papers back then eventually established the new government. On top of that they were (and still are) held in legendary regard.

You can compare yesterday and today all you want, but it gets a lot more complicated when you compare subjective thinking of the colonial and modern era. There are a ton of intangibles that we can’t possibly account for to make such claims.

Narp! They were an immediate reaction to the Stamp Act, the first of the British direct taxes.

But the revolution itself was a result of years of dissent. The Stamp Act was dished out in 1765. The Declaration of Independence came on July 4th, 1776. That’s a good ten years later. Everything before that was just escalating bickering and misdeeds.

Bad policies do not justify reactive terrorism. If Ghandhi had shot the British officials he disagreed with, he wouldn't have been as justified as he was under his non-cooperative pacifism, would he?

I am a strong believer that an abused dog has the right to bite. The extent of that bite (death-blow vs. paper-cut) may sway, but the justification to bite does not it my mind. Far as your example goes, Gandhi would be justified to do something and the extent of such action would be subjective to the individual. We are grasping at air with this.

My argument is purely that the British were responsive to non-violent American protests. By the time the Revolution came along, the Americans only suffered one direct tax, and it worked in favor of the colonists.

But in between that time, there was a mass amount of mistrust between the two sides and they had grown apart. Not to mention that the large proportion of the population believed that they were getting screwed.

No they didn't. African history hadn't worked itself out at that point. African colonization had absolutely nothing to do with why the colonists rebelled.

Let me get back to this at the bottom.

Stalin considered the existence of political dissidents to be unacceptable. Again, we're not arguing about what they thought, but about what we can agree upon as reasonable.

Yeah, I think we got off base on this. Personally, I believe that we have to establish to motive as justifiable before we get to the extent of the reaction.

Let me list some basic rights enjoyed and uninfringed upon by the English in 1775.

-The right to a trial. Perhaps it was a trial in Britain, but at least it was a trial.

-The right to labor or not labor as you choose—to be a silver-smith, pastor, farmer, shipwright, or what have you, so long as you can make it in that field.

-The right to maintain local militias and to bear private arms, so long as those arms did not pose an immediate threat to the British (i.e. if you attack the British, you forfeit that right).

-Freedom of Religion

-Freedom of the Press. The Revolution only happened because the British allowed such pamphlets as Common Sense to be published

This was not the position of Africa.

-As you say, that right to trail was largely mute.

-That right to labor basically boiled down to send as many raw minerals to Britain as fast as possible

-Any standing army can be seen as a threat. They never had to attack anybody. Their right to a militia was basically a right to invade for Britain.

-Freedom of Religion, Okay that’s fine.

-Freedom of Press, eh, debatable. But I am not gonna get into that.

I've argued this ad-nauseam. If you're going to continue to argue that quartering troops and laying direct taxes is the same as slavery, I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you here.

Its not the same as slavery, but the combination of quartering troops, direct taxes and infringement make the African colonial situation quite similar to that of the US variant. Certainly a bit less extreme, but both were designed to perform the same task.

That said, let me remind you again that not all colonies fared as the African colonies did. Canada, Australia, Hawaii, and even India are examples of colonies that either achieved their independence peacefully without suffering what Africa suffered, or else became so well integrated into their motherlands that they became full states in that motherland.

Let me move this down too.

The colonists were British citizens and were therefore subjects of the English government. Although the British may have mishandled the situation, they had every right and power to govern.

And as British citizens, the colonists had the right to proper representation. When Britain infringed on this right, they forfeited their right to power and govern, as would any government that violated their constitution. The colonists had every right to call foul.

*tear*

Well if you're going to disagree with me, I shall call you a dirty little monkey Dx

GWAH!

Well, at least I am a cute dirty little monkey. (Bwa-ha-ha)

They weren't saying "we own you." They were saying "we're your government, and we have the right to act like it." It's the difference between the federal government saying "Congress has the right to impose any law it sees fit upon the states to ensure the stability of these United States," (an idea in the Constitution) and "The citizens of the United States are slaves to the Congress." Although a Bill of Rights is necessary to restrain that power, it still isn't slavery.

But the rights of the colonists had already been infringed on before that (Congress has checks against it to keep it from happening) and the British parliament basically said that they had the right to make laws for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever". They legalized their ability to betray the rights of the colonists. That is far more reaching than any example that can come out of the U.S. Congress.

edit: The American colonists were quite content to be colonists until the British began to levy taxes. The "history of colonialism" (and most of the bad came after the American Revolution anyway) was not an important influence in why the colonists rebelled. Also, not all colonies failed.

The taxes where all it took to get the ball rolling. Their isn’t a faster way to get people riled up than to attack their wallets. The taxes weren’t the first offense anyway. The colonies profits were minimized from the onset because Britain controlled the trade routes.

Nonsense. What's important is whether it was in any way harmful to the colonies. If it wasn't harmful, it doesn't help to justify secession. If perception is all that matters, then Hitler was justified in what he did because he believed he was justified.

No way. If I have a negative perception of something, than I am gonna have issues trusting that something. Perception is 99% of the battle. Even if the provision was no harm to the colonies, the paranoid mindset spread the distrust.

I notice you're ignoring my ICC and UN arguments.

I don’t like quantifying an argument like this with examples like that. Besides, we both know that the UN and ICC do some pretty controversial stuff these days. We both could find something to support an argument. Then we would fall back into the loop of the differences between now and then and we are back where we started.

It would be an endless cycle, so I tried to avoid it.

Also, is it wrong to react to dangerous governments with trade restrictions? Or would you prefer that we go to war with them? Or shall we do nothing and let them accrue power and wealth until they can become even more dangerous?

The colonies were established to provide raw materials to the motherland. The trade restrictions were in place before the first settler even arrived stateside. Before the government could even be described as dangerous. The trade restrictions were hardly reactive.

Mercantilism had been a policy in the colonies long before the colonists themselves began to feel irritated. They were fine with those regulations until Britain lay direct taxes on them. Trade restrictions were not a serious problem in the eyes of most colonists. Direct taxes were.

The trade restrictions might have been tolerable at the time, but compounded with the direct taxes they became a problem. The process was not all at once. It was an accumulation of things. The direct taxes were just the first step that received really vocal opposition.

Okay, now back to the stuff I skipped.

No they didn't. African history hadn't worked itself out at that point. African colonization had absolutely nothing to do with why the colonists rebelled

That said, let me remind you again that not all colonies fared as the African colonies did. Canada, Australia, Hawaii, and even India are examples of colonies that either achieved their independence peacefully without suffering what Africa suffered, or else became so well integrated into their motherlands that they became full states in that motherland.

And this nebulous "history of colonialism" requires elaboration. You still haven't explained the existence of successful colonies, or how the colonists were supposed to know that African colonization would fail as they were then direct participants in its success.

Okay, let me clear the air on this.

Colonialism as it appeared at that time largely reflected four norms.

1. political and legal domination

2. economic and political dependence

3. exploitation

4. inequality

This was established through the history behind the process. Modern Colonialism (age of discovery) saw a ton of colonies and the vast majority either rapidly folded (like the ones in St Lucia (British-1605) and Grenada (British-1609)) or fell into hollow mega plantations seen from the Portuguese (like St. Kitts (Britian-1624) and Barbados (Britian-1627)).

US colonists had a history of Britain colonies that either fell through or became seriously compromised economically. They had every right to believe that their colony would fail or become decrepit just like the vast majority of colonies before them.

Africa is a good example that we can look at to see the ill-effects of colonialism. I think that at the time, there were not many differences between the African Colonies and the US colonies. I also believe that African nations are an example of where the US would be now had they not taken action.

The US colony only looked good on the surface. They were dominated as heavily as any other colony because they were established for the same reasons.

That alone gave them a justifiable reason to try and change their situation.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Sega DogTagz