I mean come on, /his/, they had the lowest taxes than any other British colony. And the American Revolution was primarily based on the fact that the North American colonists didn't have representation in Parliament for their taxation.
I was even told Britain was going to give them representation in due time if it wasn't for them rebelling.
Tbh senpai, imho, I think USA shouldn't have seceded from her mother country Britain. What do you all think?
I'd go as far as saying that it happened, therefore it was.
Of course, I'm just saying but... yeah.
Yes
It permitted them to become a superpower instead of ending up like Canada because of Britain's loser influence
>>77618
That's one broad ass question.
No seriously, I mean the ethics of taxation, representation, colonialism... I don't think I could answer the question in less than 2 hours anon.
>>77680
Go ahead and try, eat it. Eat the bait. Eat it you history buff, damn you!
>>77667
>It permitted them to become a superpower
No, their involvement in world wars made them a superpower.
The Thirteen Colonies' list of grievances was actually pretty fucking tame and lame compared to other historical revolts. But they were still unjustifiably being treated like second-class citizens of the British Empire despite many of them being descended from British immigrants or were recent immigrants themselves.
Basically, fuck the Brits.
i think the declaration of independence makes it rather clear why secession was justified. Thomas Jefferson made a big-ass list of shit they were fed up with.
The seccesion from Britian was not based on taxation without representation.
The truth is; Britain was about to outlaw slavery, and slave owners started a revolution to protect their property. Shanley v Harvey, and later R v Stapylton and James Somersett's case in English common law, set the precedence of outlawing slavery in a territory. At this, the slave holders could not possibly tolerate, so they began a revolution based on a limited government based on Locke principles of limited government, so that no government would be powerful enough to take slaves away from them.
There is a reason why so many Black slaves fought with the British. For further reading on this I would suggest Rough Crossings: The Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution.
>>77908
Who cares, you lost
>>77908
I said primarily as in one of the important reasons, I didn't say it was the chief reason.. Sir.
And yes I will certainly look into this, my good lad.
>>77680
plz. do it. I wanna read it
>>77908
the UK outlawed slavery IN THE UK at that time. Don't get too high and mighty, it wasn't banned in all territories until (if I remember correctly) 1807.
I heared it said that Britain gave up America easily because it wasnt very proffitable anyway, at least compared to some of our other colonies like India. Is that true at all?
>>78115
Mmm, no I don't think so Anon. They used North America for cash crops like tobacco, indigo, and other commodities...
>>78093
nope, looked it up. Not until 1833.
![John-Adams_Creation-of-the-White-House_HD_768x432-16x9[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qH9C443.jpg "John-Adams_Creation-of-the-White-House_HD_768x432-16x9[1].jpg")
>>77908
Washington freed every slave he legally could upon his death. The colonies which were most in favor of revolution were the ones without widespread slavery.
nice try tho
>>78093
This is true, but coupled with the ban on Westward expansion, Slave owners got paranoid that it would be them next. And the UK did outlaw slavery a few years later, so they were justified.
From the British point of view, the rebellions in the Caribbean which had to constantly be put down, were just not worth keeping American politicians on side. That and the morals of slavery were increasingly diverging between Britain and the colonies. Although Slavery wasn't the soul reason, the American revolution would never have succeed if it wasn't for the slave holders support.
>>78115
India was not a colony of the UK until the 1850s.
>>78190
UK was around India in the form of the East India company from around 1600, but the monopoly began later around 1750. So the dates match up, and the big money started rolling in around the start of the American revolution
>>77618
Absolutely not, the global terrorist syndicate known as the "United States" must be stopped.
>>77618
yes it was
all lands occupied by the murderous English had an OBLIGATION to rebel. they exploited and plundered for years. Saoirse Go Deo!
>>78232
That is true. I stand corrected.
>>78315
I really hope you are a troll and not serious about all this posting desu
>>77769
No, our basically unchecked access to the best parts of an entire continent coupled with 3,000 miles of ocean between us and our nearest serious competitor is what let us become a superpower.
Seriously, Europe left thirteen colonies with unlimited access to some of the best farmland on the planet on a continent that had only just barely been tapped, and did practically nothing to prevent emigration to the USA. What did Europeaners THINK was going to happen?
>>77908
Slavery wasn't outlawed in the British Empire (including the United Kingdom itself) until 1833, forty-seven years after the start of the Revolution. The 1807 Slave Trade Act outlawed the TRADING of slaves but not the ownership. And even the 1833 act didn't outlaw slavery in areas controlled by the British East India Company, nor Ceylon, nor Saint Helena (those had to wait for 1843)
There was no major movement to abolish slavery in Britain until the 1780s, well into the American Revolution.
>>78115
The Colonies were profitable, but after eight years of war and the French threatening their Caribbean assets (the island of Jamaica, due to sugar, was worth more than all of New England combined, for example), the British just wanted to end the war and get the trade going again.
>>77618
>complain about being taxed after a war
>throw a revolt
>get taxed under the new govt. anyway
What a waste of time
>>77618
yes
colonialism is cancer
>>77618
It's not about right and wrong. It's about financiers from abroad to influence discontent and power vacuums. The rich enemies of the British, like the French, helped finance the American Revolution.
Throughout history, the wealthy internationalists send their money to foreign lands for greater influence on world affairs.
It happens to this day with armed conflicts.
>>78608
Sure, but there has to be people willing to fight in large numbers first.
>>78168
naw, Martha kept them all until she died.
>>77618
>justifiable
History doesn't "justify" it is about "is" not "ought."
>>78243
ISLAND OF SHOPKEEPERS DETECTED. COALITION AND COALITION LICKSPITTLES NOT WELCOME IN /HIS/.
>>78115
I wouldnt say give up so easily but they did send twice as many troops to their carribean holdings in fear of rebelion passing down there. That is to say their carribean colonies made much more money that new england so in the end, losing new england was the least of worst possible outcomes.
>>77618
>justifiable
Yes, although it could have been avoided relatively easily by both sides.
Ultimately it was probably for the better. The UK became global hegemon for a long period of time even after losing the US, and honestly the world today would probably be a lot worse if the 13 were still part of the empire.
>>77853
List of Grievances much? Yeah, he summed up that beef real quick.
>>77908
This is a fact. The American Revolution was in fact a colonial aristocrat-bourgeoisie joint counter-revolution.
>>77908
Except, of course, that the hotbeds of revolt tended to be further north, and the "deep south" such as it existed back then were the most strongly loyalist states.
the us just wanted to be an independently run country that was still loyal to the crown but the UK parliament was a bunch of cunts that were tax greedy.
>>77618
Yes and no, They really didnt have any serious grievances with Britain, and many colonists considered themselves loyal subjects.
Once the hotheaded drunks in boston lit the spark it was impossible to put out the fire. I say this was affection as a masshole
