Terthna
Professional Lurker
Okay, you mind explaining this to me? Because this is an argument that I'd be very interested in seeing you expand upon.The American Revolution was immoral when it happened
Okay, you mind explaining this to me? Because this is an argument that I'd be very interested in seeing you expand upon.The American Revolution was immoral when it happened
I will answer this at length, I promise, but for now have a song.
And with the French gone from North America-the argument the empire was for their protection no longer held much water.
I would say the American revolution was moral-if the British had been willing to give everything and the colonials had still been set on rebellion, then it would not have been. But the colonials wanted to be accorded the rights of Englishmen(so expanded in conception due to benign neglect) and since they weren't getting them, they left.
A product of the system that made the US it is today huh?There is the issue of Applachian settlement as well-the British wanted to prevent colonial settlement both to appease pro British Indians(who were losing land) and Spain. The problem was the colonies demographic growth was simply irrepressible. I don't think the British understood that.
That the colonies' population was growing and growing and thus it needed more land, not to mention issues with actually enforcing no settlement policies.
I would argue in fact there was already an unconscious or subconscious manifest destiny of sorts-a desire to expand westward, to move one's family to new pastures. Regardless of what the king said or what parliament said, a man could defend his family and community from the Indians or Spaniards-and international accords meant little to the average colonist crossing past the Appalachians. Much less what the Indians thought or what the Spanish Viceroy thought.
The fact the colonies were growing on their own via more births, and not simply immigration meant that sooner or later the British would need to either give them representation, somehow repress their demographic and economic growth, or cut them loose.
The Declaration of Independence said:In Congress, July 4, 1776
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled.
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
WE hold these truths to be self-evident––That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and whenever [, that whenever]any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, [9] indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Governor Thomas Hutchinson said:They begin my Lord, with a false hypothesis, that the colonies are one distinct people, and the kingdom another, connected by political bands. The Colonies, politically considered, never were a distinct people from the kingdom. There never has been but one political band, and that was just the same before the first Colonists emigrated as it has been ever since, the Supreme Legislative Authority, which hath essential right, and is indispensably bound to keep all parts of the Empire entire, until there may be a separation consistent with the general good of the Empire, of which good, from the nature of government, this authority must be the sole judge. I should therefore be impertinent, if I attempted to shew in what case a whole people may be justified in rising up in oppugnation to the powers of government, altering or abolishing them, and substituting, in whole or in part, new powers in their stead; or in what sense all men are created equal; or how far life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be said to be unalienable; only I could wish to ask the Delegates of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, how their Constituents justify the depriving more than an hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in some degree to their lives, if these rights are so absolutely unalienable; nor shall I attempt to confute the absurd notions of government, or to expose the equivocal or inconclusive expressions contained in this Declaration; but rather to shew the false representation made of the facts which are alledged to be the evidence of injuries and usurpations, and the special motives to Rebellion. There are many of them, with designs, left obscure; for as soon as they are developed, instead of justifying, they rather aggravate the criminality of this Revolt.
Fought and bled for a war Britain started in the colonies. Received absolutely nothing from said war. Forbidden from taking advantage of the territory won in said war. Had taxes imposed on them to pay for the war that had no benefit to the colonists. Had their economies restricted and forced to be tied to Britain. Had to quarter troops in their own homes. Martial law declared in peace time. Given no representatives. Attempted, multiple times, to come to peace. Rejected each time. Yeah Britain was totally justified.Anybody who thinks the American Rebellion was justified ought to take a look at some of what the Loyalists said.
Okay, let's go through the facts that you ignored.Fought and bled for a war Britain started in the colonies. Received absolutely nothing from said war. Forbidden from taking advantage of the territory won in said war. Had taxes imposed on them to pay for the war that had no benefit to the colonists. Had their economies restricted and forced to be tied to Britain. Had to quarter troops in their own homes. Martial law declared in peace time. Given no representatives. Attempted, multiple times, to come to peace. Rejected each time. Yeah Britain was totally justified.
I do love one slave holding nation to another saying “lol you have slaves”. Pot calling the kettle black.
total lack of political representation is a pretty just complaint. The war was also started by the British pushing to take the Ohio territory. The colonists did not benefit the way that the rest of Britain did and took the brunt of the hardships with nothing in return. It’s not a benefit to the colonists that they won when it’s an offensive war the British started.Okay, let's go through the facts that you ignored.
Britain didn't "start a war in the colonies." The colonies were part of Britain, and they fought alongside Britain in the war against the French. The alternative was the French winning. I don't think any British colonist wanted the French to win. Did you see what happened when the French lost?
The colonists had no right to settle the territory won in the French and Indian War. The British state could use that territory however it wished.
Again, to say that the Americans didn't benefit from the war is misleading at best. If the French had won that war, North America might have become largely French-speaking with a British minority rather than largely English-speaking with a French minority. And, as Hutchinson points out, there's no justification for the colonist's complaints about taxation.
thats entirely false. They started enforcing Mercantilist economics very shortly after the war ended.Their economies were not restricted during the time they revolted, and it was only after they began revolting that the British government started restricting their trade.
Complete fabrication. They had to pass the quartering act to enforce it because it was entirely unaccepted. There is also a massive difference between finding quarters for the much smaller military presence that they had before and the much larger presence after. “You were fine with providing your food and property for 1000 soldiers, why not ten thousand” is not an argument that holds any ground.The quartering of troops was already accepted by colonial governments and was necessary to prevent mass desertion of the British troops.
What made them terrorists?Martial Law was only declared in Massachusetts, where there was an active rebellion led by a terrorist group called the Sons of Liberty.
Doesn’t matter. It shows the wholly unequal political status. I mean by this logic parlaiment would be wholly justified in making slaves of all English colonial men and taking all their wives as concubines and baking their children in ovens, and there would be no just response because the government doesn’t owe them that. Why should it just be totally acceptable to be a second class citizen, with no way to redress that in a wholly unequal relationship?There's no part of the English constitution that says you need representation; Parliament represents the colonies already.
They didn't attempt to come to peace. The colonists made demands, the British conceded, and these concessions led to further demands. Furthermore, as Hutchinson pointed out, at no time before the Declaration of Independence did the colonists try to petition the government to end these grievances.
Like calling yourself a follower of Christ while sinning. I think you can grasp the idea of holding a set of ideals you aspire to uphold but falling short of it can’t you?Finally, Hutchinson wasn't taking shots at the American slave trade but American hypocrisy; declaring yourself to be defending the inalienable rights of men while owning slaves is definitely hypocritical, and it's a hypocrisy the British did not share.
You are just being hysterical. Just looking at the links you sent me only proves my point.total lack of political representation is a pretty just complaint. The war was also started by the British pushing to take the Ohio territory. The colonists did not benefit the way that the rest of Britain did and took the brunt of the hardships with nothing in return. It’s not a benefit to the colonists that they won when it’s an offensive war the British started.
thats entirely false. They started enforcing Mercantilist economics very shortly after the war ended.
Complete fabrication. They had to pass the quartering act to enforce it because it was entirely unaccepted. There is also a massive difference between finding quarters for the much smaller military presence that they had before and the much larger presence after. “You were fine with providing your food and property for 1000 soldiers, why not ten thousand” is not an argument that holds any ground.
What made them terrorists?
Doesn’t matter. It shows the wholly unequal political status. I mean by this logic parlaiment would be wholly justified in making slaves of all English colonial men and taking all their wives as concubines and baking their children in ovens, and there would be no just response because the government doesn’t owe them that. Why should it just be totally acceptable to be a second class citizen, with no way to redress that in a wholly unequal relationship?
Petition to the King - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.orgOlive Branch Petition - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Total fabrication. It wasn’t until these were rejected that the declaration was sent.
Like calling yourself a follower of Christ while sinning. I think you can grasp the idea of holding a set of ideals you aspire to uphold but falling short of it can’t you?
Do you believe that it is ever justified to revolt against a government? If so when? What are the conditions necessary?
You're correct. Why, just look at all of the other former British colonies. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all had these violent revolutions too.Terrorism happens in just about every revolution or civil war. It should be understood in its context, not condemned simply for being terrorism.
@The Name of Love you didn't address my points.
Namely that the population growth of the colonies and the move westward was an organic process and thus meant that the British either needed to give them more and more concessions to remain in the Empire, try to restrict their growth, or cut them loose.
Now of course, these long term trends don't say whether or not the revolution was moral, simply that the British crown had to deal with the reality of the situation at some point or another.
That’s not the point. Unless you argument is that you can never justifiably rebel ever it isn’t relevant what the English constitution says. No taxation without representation isn’t a legalese argument, it’s an argument about how citizens should be treated. What you are missing here is that Hutchinson and yourself are arguing from totally different axioms than the colonists. The colonists are arguing from the axiom of natural rights and how citizens of a state relate to their government, and how these should be. What Hutchinson and yourself are arguing is that “this is how things are, and what we are allowed to do.” You are saying that the colonists were treated as they were legally allowed to be under the English constitution. What I and the colonists argued is here is how people as a whole should be treated by government, here are the natural rights inherent to them as people, and here is how the government is in violation of that.First, when you say that you can't have taxation without representation, that's not a part of the English constitution. That was just a slogan asserted by the colonists (as well as yourself). By contrast, the English constitution does not allow the king to treat his people as he wills. So you're wrong there.
Different circumstances. Not equivalent, and in looking at all these countries I can say we made the right choice. All of these have far closer ties to Britain and their style and form of government, which is vastly inferior to Americas.You're correct. Why, just look at all of the other former British colonies. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all had these violent revolutions too.