Did the Revolutionary War start because the colonists were greedy? Reading I to the war it seems they got pussy that the empire wanted them to pay on goods,
For example, the 1733 Molasses Act, introduced to protect the plantations from their more productive French counterparts, imposed a tax of sixpence per gallon on imports of molasses from non-British West Indian colonies. But it was so heavily violated that it produced only a trickle of revenue; twenty years later, only 384 hogsheads of molasses officially entered Boston, a town housing 63 rum distilleries that together required an annual 40,000 hogsheads of molasses to maintain normal production.
It seems to me that the colonists didn't want to pay their fair share to the empire and chomped out.
What are your guy's thoughts?
>>72327840
same as with those inbred pilgrim cult, who didn't want to pay taxes nomore.
same as with those inbred protestant, whom just chimped out and robbed catholic monasteries.
wherever you look, you see inbred anglo are the worst stinkiest shitheads ever
>>72327840
the British didn't use those taxes to whisper sweet nothings and make empty promises like governments do in the modern age
>>72328023
It seems to make sense that money was required to pay for the French and I Dian war or the Seven Years War. Just seems kind of ridiculous for the colonists to chimp out
The British were just as unreasonable.
But at the end of the day, the British were just replaced with local boys who still exploited the populace similarly as the British had.
>>72328001
Are Anglos just from England or who else is considered Anglo?
Also the British didn't want colonists settling further West, and well, we weren't going to have that.
>>72328192
I understand that their response was brash and the didn't work well with the colonists government but was the taxes brash? It seems to make sense to collect taxes on goods that had a tax but we're smuggled. So what was wrong with having them pay for them?
>you don't deserve political representation you worthless colonialist
yeah ok have fun with that.
>>72328228
That makes sense though given that they couldn't really provide protection past the Rockies. Didn't they have treaties with the natives anyway?
>>72328201
whomever is of anglosaxon ancenstry.
So, every wasp is an anglo and thus and inbred half-kike robber
>>72327840
>americans disagree with the policies of britain (free trade vs mercantilism)
>have no way of shaping policy in a meaningful way
>decide to declare independence from a distant realm with different culture and different interests
colonialism ended worldwide for a reason. there are legitimate issues with being under the rule of a distant government
unless you decentralize to the british commonwealth there will always be a legitimate reason for war
>>72328326
But they did have political representation, it seems only after they started to throw fits about the taxes the English back home started to not work with them which is there fault however it still seems to me that the colonies just didn't want to actually pay on the items they were suppose to.
>>72328372
>not wanting to BTFO the eternal Francophone and his savage cannibal buddies
what's wrong with you?
>>72328372
They were just trying to keep the colonist in check. As they grow, they get stronger, and then look what happens.
>>72328295
Lot more to it then just one new tax. There was also general "Republican" sentiments, and like, a fuck load of other stuff (who controls the land, who pays who, who sends who to fight who, etc). The local boys wanted the power, and were able to convince enough of their of their countrymen it was in their interest. Fairly complicating overall and more or less a huge misunderstanding, lol.
>>72328565
>But they did have political representation
No, no they didn't
how are you this fucking dumb?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
The whole point of the war was the fact Americans had no representation in Parliament.
>>72328575
I just meant that the British army couldn't expand past the Rockies to protect settlers and easy maintain a supply line.
>>72328445
Huh interesting.
>>72328448
>different culture and value
Weren't the colonists English and some other Europeans though?
>>72327840
Are white people crybabies?
The biggest op, the biggest.
>>72328787
t. Shaniqua
>>72328653
>local boys wanted the power
So would you say that power hungry people, in a bad sense, made a big push for independence? I do see what you're saying though, starting to look a lot more complex than just taxes.
>>72328326
> redneck education everyone.
I bet you think the slaves were "happy" to work for master as well, huh cleetus?
>>72328883
> look mom I posted again!
*crosses arms and leans back*
>>72327840
The war really started because the colonies were having laws passed to them without any representation in the Parliament. No taxation without representation.
>>72328886
Well, I mean, who profited from the war more than anyone? Can't really say it was the everyday American as much as the "founding fathers", who cemented themselves as land barons and the new aristocracy for years to follow.
That's not to say it was pure greed though, I'm sure their intentions varied significantly.
>>72328739
> Fucking dumb
No I started the thread to ask questions, do you get this prissy over any discussions? Maybe you shouldn't talk with anyone then.
>taxation
So they felt misrepresented however most of this sentiment seems to come about after the empire started to enforce colonists actually paying for taxes on goods such as molasses. Large amounts of smuggling occurred in the colonies so what was wrong with enforcing new laws for them to actually pay on those goods like they were suppose to?
I do agree being so far from the Empires capital made negotiating and working with each other hard however money seems to be the main issue.
>>72328918
>>72329017
>muh rednecks
Well we can't all be liberal art majors now can we?
Do you have any actual argument?
Yes they were being taxed without political representation in Parliament,
see
>>72328739
>>72329031
Yeah true, good input anon.
>>72329121
>misrepresented
no not misrepresented "not" represented. In other words they have no voice in their own governance something that goes against all the ideals of the rights of Englishmen going back to the Magna Carta.
>>72327840
>>72329132
Just Bern my shit up
>>72329234
Hmm, another question did the colonies have representitives in England to speak for them? Like a council who stayed there to represent the colonies in the Parliament.
>>72329031
>land barons and the new aristocracy
you really are a moron. The whole point of the US was that there wasn't an aristocracy, Jefferson planned out the country's land policy as a decentralized state full of independent farmers who didn't have to answer to anyone.
>>72329332
how about reading "anything" about Jeffersonian Democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy
Not a lot about an "aristocracy" is there?
>>72328445
what would you consider pure bred?
>>72329332
>answer to now one
Do you think the later Union was wrong with pushing for farmers to lose the ownership of slaves? Not a smart response just wondering your stance.
>>72327840
King George III's Currency Act. The private banks have always been our worst enemy.
>>72329308
They did have representatives, but they were appointed by the king. A crony more than likely. The colonists argued that a person from the colonies would not have a personal stake in their representation.
>>72329308
>did the colonies have representitives in England
They had no legal representation in Parliament.
That isn't up for debate
>>72329525
So like this guy, >>72329522, said they were appointed by England pretty much?
>>72329434
When I meant "no one" I meant aristocratic landowners
Of course farmers should still have to answer to the democratically elected government, and yes I think slavery should have been immediately abolished and all the slaves shipped back to Africa (like Lincoln wanted)
>>72329588
The king didn't have control over the government Parliament did, and the American colonies had no elected officials in parliament.
>>72329332
Like I said, their sentiments varied., but to say the founding fathers didn't take more than their fair share for the colonies winning the war would be complete bullshit. And I didn't mean aristocracy literally (I guess I should of used a different word), but what replaced the ruling class that were there while it was still in the British Empire.
>>72328154
If you want to impose policy, you have to give people a say in it.
The American revolution is what happens when a group of incredibly well educated, nuanced, and persuasive individuals with capital get together in one place.
>>72329588
Yep. The British defended this with an argument of virtual representation. They assumed that if the few men who owned land in England voted on a certain law, then all others who owned land in the colonies felt the same.
>>72329785
>more than their fair share
How? There was no concentration of land oligarchs in the US like there was (and still is) in Latin America.
You are just making shit up.
>>72329758
>Lincoln wanted
Yeah when I found out about that I thought "fucking Booth".
Were the colonies geared at more of a democracy or republic?
>>72329928
It was a democratic republic where you elect your representative to congress.
I strict democracy would be something like ancient Greece where the citizens of the city (polis) all vote directly on everything (like to execute Socrates)
>>72330038
Well we have strayed from the democratic republic that's for sure.
>>72329859
I see thanks anon.
>>72330139
No problem friend. Happy to help.
Surprised no British people have commented.
>>72329430
no bred is pure, but if you look at spaniard, frenchs and germans you don't find the kikery traits anglos do have.
>>72330257
Have a beer.
>>72330263
There aren't any real ones left...
>>72329501
Didn't one of the banking families buy England after a war, like the Rothchilds?
>>72330422
Get in on this Commonwealth shit USA. Return like the prodigal son and hang out reunited with your kangabros and leafbros
>>72330760
Would it be possible to join? Still want to be a democratic Republic though. Anything special we would have to do?
