From a neutral point of view, did the British really "abuse" the colonists? If so, why did they abuse the colonists?
Absolutely not. British were simply trying to collect their taxes rightfully owed to them by their subjects. Britain financed and provided security for the colonies, it was in their right to demand a return on their investment.
Early Americans were nothing but deadbeat hooligans evading taxes. You know what would happen to such people in today's America? They would rot in jail!
>>884637
No
The British had spent an exorbitant amount of money protecting the colonies when they asked the British to do so in the 7 Years War. The taxes levied against the colonies (which were incredibly small in comparison to the taxes people on England payed) were to help pay for that.
It was an abusive parent/child relationship where the child eventually gets too big and beats the shit out of dad.
>>884637
Any honest American will admit that "abuse" is stretching it. Doesn't mean we had to like it, though.
I'd also whether the taxes were "rightfully" imposed, though. Just because our taxes were much lower than in England doesn't erase the fact that, unlike in the English, we had no representation in the Parliament which enacted them. Moreover, by this point, the Yankee New England colonies (e.g. Boston, which was the focus of resistance) had previously had 150 years of "Benign Neglect" by the crown and by the 1700s regarded a lack of taxes as their natural and traditional relationship with the crown (unlike in England.)
Finally, while the taxes did pay for the protection of the colonies during the 7 Years War/French and Indian War protecting the colonies wasn't exactly a selfless act by Britain which we begged and pleaded for. The French were only a danger to the colonists because of Britain European conflicts with them in the first place.
Moreover, it wasn't just about taxes, but about local self-government. In New England (and to a lesser extent in Virginia) there had been 150 years of a strong tradition of local government. It wasn't democratic by any means (that was largely an Enlightenment addition) but from the Mayflower Compact on, the settlers managed their own affairs with hardly any interference from authorities in Great Britain, and the taxes were seen as part of a plan to take greater control of everyday life in New England, e.g. by enforcing religious restrictions as in England. The attempt at disbanding the local-controlled colonies in favor of royal governance had been tried before, in the abandoned Dominion of New England, so it wasn't a crazy idea. I guess the main idea I'm trying to get at is that at least in New England it wasn't so much seen as breaking off from Britain to establish a new condition of independence as restoring their traditional and God-given historical condition of independence. The emphasis on local town councils, etc. in New England was tied in with Puritan religious beliefs.
(In contrast, in the Mid Atlantic and the Deep South there had been direct royal/proprietorial control, and if the details devolved to locals it was by permission rather than right).
>>884723
A good overview is the first half of "American Nations" by Colin Woodard.
>>884706
>protecting the colonies wasn't exactly a selfless act by Britain which we begged and pleaded for
It actually was
>>884829
Ok, that was mis-phrased. The colonists were in fact scared shitless of the French (dirty papists allied with the savage redskins, etc. etc.) but my point is that the outbreak of hostilities in North America was due to Britain's involvement in the Seven Years War in Europe, not to anything that the colonists did.
A good reason Virginians revolted against British rule was Virginians believed the British were treating blacks on the same level as whities. Americans kept slavery far longer than the British. USA is a nation built on greed and barbarism.
>>884679
>What is Boston
>>884691
>when they asked the British to do so
They didnt
The British army started that war, the colonist population had no say on the matter
What is rather ironic though is that Washington was heavily involved in starting that war
>>885171
The boston ' massacre' happened because the 'protestors' were throwing rocks at the redcoats while brandishing clubs. The British were scared they would lynch them. If this happened in the US today with police they'd probably get off scot free.
>>885356
>They didnt
Yes they did
>leave us alone you imperialist tyrants we just want to wallop niggers and make them pick cotton in peace!
applies to both the American Rev War and the feud with the Transvaal Boers
I am glad they rebelled either way
>>885016
lol
>>884706
>Finally, while the taxes did pay for the protection of the colonies during the 7 Years War/French and Indian War protecting the colonies wasn't exactly a selfless act by Britain which we begged and pleaded for. The French were only a danger to the colonists because of Britain European conflicts with them in the first place.
That might be partially misleading. British protection was important to the American colonies as other world powers still had their interests in the area. Great Britain was in a better position to project power and stability in the new world than any other nation. Paying taxes is an establish dynamic of the subject's relationship to the State. I don't think we have any right to color taxation in America as extortion or protection money.
>>885626
The British army did start the French and Indian Wars (Battle of Jumonville Glen)
As for what was going on in Europe, Britain was pretty irrelevant to it
>>885633
There is a reason it is sometimes referred to as the Fourth Intercolonial War. France and Britain had been shooting each other in the Americas for quite some time, 1754 was just another episode - like a reappearing rash. Both was trying to curb the power of the other in colonial expansion and if given the choice, if independence was not an option I suspect the American colonists would've preferred British rule as opposed to French. I don't think it's fair to portray American colonists who are, by law, British subjects, as victims of a war started by a tyrant.
Does there need to be a convincing case for American Independence? I thought one of the cornerstones of self-government was that if a people could find a way to express a general will that was enough justification in itself? Even Hobbes might agree with that. Is the claim that a majority of the colonists supported independence a myth?
>>884706
>which we begged and pleaded for
Most just begged and pleaded to settle on the land that the Brits forbade them from settling on.
>>885657
>I don't think it's fair to portray American colonists who are, by law, British subjects, as victims of a war started by a tyrant.
Especially when the war was started by Washington's autism
>>885657
>Is the claim that a majority of the colonists supported independence a myth?
Yes
1/3 wanted independence, 1/3 were loyalists, and 1/3 were neutral
>>885633
Why are North American battles always so hilarous and unrealistic when it comes to numbers?
>>884679
Americans didn't care about the actual taxes. They were pissed that they had no say in the matter as they didn't have any representation in parliament. The end of the seven year war also brought more British oversight in America as they began stationing troops all over the colonies. The war was 100% about sovereignty.
>>885731
I don't intend to sound contrarian it sounds perfectly feasible, but I would like to see materials supporting this.
>>885948
Just check the 1775 pew poll brah.
>>884637
Most early americans agreed it was better when they were colonists then when members of an independent nation.
>>884732
>Texas
>Appalachia
what the hell?
>>885869
This 100%
90% of the grievances listed in the Declaration are soviernty based.
http://patriotsline.com/how-well-do-you-actually-know-the-declaration-of-independence/the-declaration-of-independence-the-grievances/
>>884637
The short answer is 'no'. The men actually fighting on the ground on the American side may have believed themselves to be fighting against tyranny or for the right to settle the west or any other number of reasons, but this wasn't the case. It's quite a similar affair to the American Civil War, where Southerners believed themselves to be fighting for their state or for
the South in general, and Northerners believed themselves to be fighting for the integrity of their country or against slavery. The men on both sides were wrong.
Both the American War of Independence and the American Civil War were fought for the financial self-interests of the men that initiated and led the conduct of the war. George Washington and the Founding Fathers owned businesses that profited off of foreign trade and were attempting to develop domestic industry, and both of those efforts were severely hampered by the mercantile system observed within the British Empire at the time. Similarly, in the Civil War, southern slave owners were able to use both prejudices and regional affinities to convince their fellow southerners to fight for the incredibly unsustainable economic model of slavery. Northerners were no less misled and those misleading them were no less self-interested; Ulysses S. Grant, despite depending on abolitionism to recruit many of his soldiers, was the last President of the United States to own slaves. As well, Northern industry was dependent on the South, both for customers to purchase their manufactured goods and the raw resources to manufacture those goods in the first place.
>>885869
yeah, and the American Civil War was about state's rights.
>>884679
Let's not forget that the taxes were something like 1\26th of what Britons paid.
>>888492
You're actually right. No amount of reductionism will make that untrue.
>>884637
The colonists were abused insofar as the British wouldn't let the colonial elites do whatever the fuck they liked. This gets spun down into bullshit about quartering soldiers and tea taxes that the peasant colonists can claim as an "injustice".
By making them pay what they owed and telling them "hey pals you have some representation but the amount you want is kind of impossible considering the distance and your multiple colonies."
Bunch of opportunistic fops with over inflated egos now. That said, Jefferson was okay.
>>884700
Child eventually gets too big and
>asks the French for help
>>888606
I don't really see how the distance argument is of much concern. Wouldn't travelling across the Atlantic basically take as long as travelling to the Midwest? The Midwestern states had no trouble dealing with Washington when they were admitted to the Union.
NO taxation without representation! The housing of British troops in civilian homes is unbearable! The taxes on parchment and tea undercut all American businesses and make use beholden to English goods! Give me liberty or give me death!
>>884637
>Yes
>Why?
In the early 1700s, Britain was coming off of two simultaneous wars that put the budget into trouble. Interestingly, the first time the word Budget was used was in Britain in 1733 as a novel suggestion; they would have one. Actual written accounts of the money spent right next to the money taken in. This was only necessary as banking and derivatives were beginning to catch on through the Bank of England which was formed in 1694 to lend money to parliament. Prior to this, if you don't have gold, you don't have money; a simple glance at the treasury could tell you if you were running low.
So after the lotteries failed to raise money to finance the debt, the next solution was the creation of a monopoly backed by the government. 'The South Sea Company' which would later create the 'South Sea Bubble' which in turn necessitated tax hikes on the most vulnerable British citizens to finance yet more debt spawned from fraud. The Monopoly scheme called for all trade and all profits from South America to be collected under a single company by law, to be run by the Prime Minister and his friends for their benefit in exchange for paying back the government through dividends, taxes, and such like. In exchange all their expenses would be backed by loans from the public treasury in the government's name. Public funds, and public credit to produce and protect private profits.
Unfortunately, it was quickly realized that this backing meant that the owners of the South Sea Company could simply issue stock from the company whenever they needed money. Then borrow against the stock which was backed by the government's absolute conviction that the venture would succeed. Then issue more stock when their liquid assents, and thus their stock price go up, to borrow more money...until someone catches on to the ruse. Ultimately, no trade was ever done by the company at least in South America which was owned by Spain at the time.
>>888868
So, after a pair of expensive wars that went nowhere, and a banking crisis brought on by corruption and dodgy derivatives, taxing the crap out of the Americans and other colonists who didn't matter was the only solution left.
If nothing else, the British thought of their citizens as the financiers of their own corruption; there to bail them out after they had robbed them blind already trying to get them killed for things they wouldn't get anyway.
>>888569
Hoity-toity Brits thought they were so superior and more civilized than everyone else. The frontiersmen of the colonies were seen as brutes, borderline savages.
>People hunting and growing their own food, producing their own goods, instead of feeding the British economy and giving homage to the King like decent loyalists? Animals. Ungodly heathen. Who wouldn't want to be ruled by a king 3,000 miles away? I don't understand this... we must impose strict policies on them to set them straight...
Basically, the colonists saw through the lies of the Jedi. They saw their opportunity for freedom and they took it. The brainwashed average Brit suffered and continues to suffer the real injustice. But, with freedom comes responsibility, and for some it's simply too much to bear.
>>888954
>People hunting and growing their own food, producing their own goods, instead of feeding the British economy and giving homage to the King like decent loyalists? Animals. Ungodly heathen. Who wouldn't want to be ruled by a king 3,000 miles away? I don't understand this... we must impose strict policies on them to set them straight...
>implying anyone in Britain ever thought this
But it does sound a lot like the founding fathers. They were hella elitist, and specifically created the government to serve elite interests.
>Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
>actual quote from James Madison
But keep believing that Patriot level bullshit about freedom and taxes and soldiers being stationed in your house.
Empires never are exceptionally good to their vassals. The historical meme was get out whenever you can.
If it were an international federation or so.ething then now we're talking.
>>884637
>did the British really "abuse" the colonists?
The primary cause of the revolution was the natural breakdown of communication between the colonies and the motherland. England considered the local assemblies in America as a sort of devolved Parliament. They governed in the name of Parliament as a matter of convenience, but Parliament was the one who held prerogative. The Americans, in contrast, over time, came to see their various assemblies as equals to Parliament in power and authority.
>>884637
no, there was actually a pretty good history professor at OU that explains alot of this, trying to replace locally elected governors was a big thing alot of people hated.
>>889160
>implying anyone in Britain ever thought this
>keep believing that Patriot level bullshit about freedom and taxes and soldiers being stationed in your house.
>keep believing that bullshit about freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3dR7u7TPNo
>>889453
was this meant to prove a point?
>>884637
Yes all European nations abused their colonies.
Mercantilism is abuse.
>>888745
We had to prove that we could hold our own before they would give us any.
>>885016
>marxist theory
>>884679
What is taxation without representation
>>884637
No, a few radicals got the population whipped up and manufactured a story of oppression. Plus, the American revolution not happening would have probably prevented the French revolution from happening and republicanism would never have taken hold worldwide.
tl;dr No and the would would be a better place for everyone if it had not happened.
>>889497
A point? No way. I just thought you'd really like that song.
Here's another you might like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-2-6cb9j-I
I think you're totally right, bro. The colonists didn't really need to be so worried about freedom. I can see now that it was all bullshit. The taxes... the Quartering Acts... so what? Right? They should've just taken it easy. I get it now.
>>885580
And the best part is John Adams (yes, "that" John Adams) was the defense attorney for the soldiers afterward and got most of them off, with relatively light sentences for the couple unlucky ones.
I really don't get it.The Vast Majority of the colonies in the new world had no representation in their Metropol, Haiti didn't have it, almost all of the French and Spannish colonies didn't have it, why the hell did the Thirteen Colonies just expect it? That's just how it was at the time, almost no-one had representation in their governments, in France, In Spain, in most of the Kingdoms of Europe, and somehow it's just that the USA were outraged over something that was not commonplace anyway. I completely understand that a war for independence was probable due to the isolation between colonizer and colony, and that's all well and good, but it's insane tyo try and rationalize it by saying that the citizens of the united states were outraged that they weren't free. No-one was free. They didn't rebel to escape tyranny, they rebelled because they didn't like paying taxes.
>>890965
extortion?
>>895044
>why the hell did the Thirteen Colonies just expect it?
Because they believed they were subject to the English bill of rights. They Thirteen colonies didn't want to become similar to Haiti or New Spain.
>they rebelled because they didn't like paying taxes.
No, read >>888383, it was about determining where the colonies stood in terms of controlling their sovereignty. This isn't very difficult to understand, which surprises me that some people don't seem to get it.
