Was the American Revolution justified?

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It was just rhetoric to get support from the French.

Look at the facts.

#1 The British outlawed slavery in Britain in 1772, 4 years later the Americans revolted.
#2 Many of the founding fathers owned slaves and the revolutionaries were disporportionately slave owners.
#3 Some of the founders were actually slave traders, such and Franklin.
#4 The British immediately offered freedom to blacks that fought against the colonists when the war started, yet the coloniests did not and in fact refused to allow any blacks to fight in the army and actually made conditions more harsh on the slaves during the war.
#5 The colonists finally allowed blacks to fight towards the end when they needed all the help they could get.
#6 The British were the first to outlaw the slave trade.
#7 The Americans didn't outlaw slavery until the 1860s, almost 100 years AFTER the British outlawed it.
#8 Thomas Jefferson owned over 200 slaves in his lifetime and only freed 5, the ones that he fathered. He kept his own children as slaves while he was alive.

If the Americans were so appauled at slavery as to revolt over the issue, then why did they keep for almost 100 years longer than the British? Why was slavery bigger in America than almost any other recorded instance of slavery in the history of the world?
 
jj said:
So you can build more straw men? Why should I bother? You've erupted forth here, asking a variety of vague questions that allow you to walk any side you want when they are replied to, with some of the most obvious traits I've ever seen of a troll who wants to further some agenda.

I am NOT trying to ask vague questions, and I am NOT a troll trying to further some agenda. My question is very, very clear. Here it is again! WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLONISTS WERE MORALLY CORRECT (I.E. JUSTIFIED) IN BREAKING AWAY FROM GREAT BRITON? I'm sorry but I really can't see how I could possibly be more clear then that.

You think we should have all bowed down to King George. Why? You are the one who needs to make the case. George had no call to lord it over the Scots and Irish, or the Welsh, so why the colonists?

Why should we have bowed down to King George? BECAUSE HE WAS GIVING US WHAT WE WANTED!!!! We claimed that all we wanted were our rights as Englishmen. O.K. That encludes the right to a strong, stable government that protects the citizens, provides a just court of law, and provices military assitance in the case of defense. However THIS COSTS MONEY. You can't rule a government without money. Therefore we kept trying to claim our "rights as Englishmen" without paying the price, (i.e. taxes). All the government asked, in exchange for giving us the rights mentioned above was a few taxes that THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES TODAY. The Tea Tax, was your typical sales tax. Any goods leaving or entering the country were taxed, the exact same as any sales tax we have today. The Stamp Tax, was a postage tax. We have that today as well (ever heard of postage stamps). Neither of the taxes were unreasonable, it was the Americans that were (and still are) being unreasonable in demanding all of the benifits of a government without being willing to pay for it. The Americans were not justified because the British were giving them their rights in a simple exchange for taxes.

There I have answered your question as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you have any questions about it please ask. Now, will you PLEASE actually answer my question. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLONISTS WERE MORALLY CORRECT (I.E. JUSTIFIED) IN BREAKING AWAY FROM GREAT BRITON?
 
I will always root for wealthy pro-business freemasons to overthrow a monarchy's rule.
 
Hegel said:


There I have answered your question as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you have any questions about it please ask. Now, will you PLEASE actually answer my question. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLONISTS WERE MORALLY CORRECT (I.E. JUSTIFIED) IN BREAKING AWAY FROM GREAT BRITON?

Your historical "facts" are laughable. Try again later, please.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

shanek said:


Oh, very nice... they're justified in treating the colonists like crap because they were treating others like crap, too...

Interesting interpretation, but no, that's not what I said.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

rikzilla said:
You guys trot that out alot. Kneejerk-like.
And "you guys" are who exactly?

You forget that sometimes the ends DO justify the means. That's why another trite expression says: "All's fair in love and war".

All that I was trying to say is that without military strength, all the good ideas of history,...the Magna Carta, rule of law, parlimentary representation, bill of rights,....would have never come to pass.

Many people on this forum belittle the soldier...but without him there would be no freedom from which protection you can safely spout off.

If you are at war, then the only thing that has real meaning to you is victory. In war victory is the ultimate justification. It's not the world as I would like it to be,....it's just a recognition of the world that is.

It is the real difference between Founding Father...and treacherous traitor.
-z

BTW: Thanks for the kind word RF ;)
If you've got anything to say which actually addresses the point I raised, I'll look forward to reading it.
 
Hegel said:
You state that anyone can argue against the legitamacy of a revolution. Of course they can, because by definition it is illeagal. However that really isn't the issue here. The issue really is if the colonist trully had attequate justification for breaking away from England. I claim that they were NOT justified in breaking away. It appears that you disagree. If you don't mind please state your arguments for why the colonists had appropriate justification for starting a revolution.

Please state your justifications for why involuntary slavery, penal colonies, indentured servitude, mass transportations of entire families, excessive taxation, restrictions on freedom and representation atypical even of the repressive Brittish government of the time, and rejection of the repressive religious and economic government are equitable.

After you can demonstrate the equity of the situation, as opposed to simply alledge in direct contradiction to the generally understood historical facts, you're simply blowing wind.
 
corplinx said:
I will always root for wealthy pro-business freemasons to overthrow a monarchy's rule.

Heh. Well, I can't say it would be my primary motivation, but I can't fault you on this one, Corps.
 
What I'm asking is if you think that what they thought was enough was actually worth starting combat over.

That's the kind of question that answers itself.

Improper execution of British Imperialism was a lesson not learned as late as the 1940s.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

shanek said:


Oh, very nice... they're justified in treating the colonists like crap because they were treating others like crap, too...

The more I read, yes, the more that seems like what the guy is arguing.

He's all yours. His emergence and trolling in the last few days suggest that a sensible resolution with him is unlikely.
 
First I'd like to thank you for finally answering the question.

jj said:


Please state your justifications for why involuntary slavery, penal colonies, indentured servitude, mass transportations of entire families, excessive taxation, restrictions on freedom and representation atypical even of the repressive Brittish government of the time, and rejection of the repressive religious and economic government are equitable.

After you can demonstrate the equity of the situation, as opposed to simply alledge in direct contradiction to the generally understood historical facts, you're simply blowing wind.

I would claim that your arguments however fall far outside of the range of "fact" and well into the range of interpretation. First of all it was the colonists themselves who were buying the slaves and it was generally speaking the Portugeagse that were getting them in the first place. After Bacon's Rebellion, in 1680, where a large number of indentured servants (who chose to come over here) rebelled against their masters, the practice of indentured servitude fell into disuse, being supplanted with African slavery. If you could please site some sources of this "mass transportation of families" it would be greatly appreciated. I haven't heard of this before, so I am unfamiliar with the curcumstances. The phrase "excesive taxation" would obviously indicate a personal opinion and therefore not be a historical fact. As far as I know these are the Acts passed by Parliment on the Colonies. If you know any more please respond with them.

The Sugar Act of 1764
The Sugar Act rose the duties on refined sugar, and decreased the duties on molasses in an attempt to move the refining of sugar to England, and the making of rum to the Colonies.

The Currency Act of 1764
This Act declared that the Colonies were required to stop production of paper money, and slowly circulate it out in exchange for British coins. This was an attempt to lower the inflation rates which were rampant in the colonies at the time.

The Stamp Act
This was a small tax on all printed items. The idea was to create a very minor tax on a major item, so that individuals wouldn't feel the weight of the tax, but that the government could still gain money.

The Mutiny Act of 1765
This act declared that all smugglers were traitors, by aiding the economic power of foreign enemies, by trading with them.

By 1766 the Stamp Act had been repealed. However in its place was the Declatory Act, which finally place in writing the previous assumtion that the government in London was the final authority over the colonies.

The Townsend Act of 1767
This act created a tax on all tea, paper, lead, and paint. By 1770 all but the tax on tea had been revoked.

The Tea Act
The tax on tea created by the Townsed Act led to an embargo of tea. In the end this led Congress to pass the Tea act stating that only English tea could be imported into the colonies, and that the East India Company was exempt from the tea tax.

So as you can see the actual numbers and amounts of the taxes imposed by the government were minimal at best, and well justified for an overextended empire that has just incurred debts from a major war.

As far as I know there were few restrictions on freedom, not actually imposed by the colonies themselves. The only I know of is the restrictions on moving west into territory that the English didn't have the troops to hold, and the restrictions on smuggling which is illegal anywhere. As for representation, NO ONE had geographical representation in Parliment. Parliment was elected by party lines, and all members of Parliment were to represent the Empire on a whole, and not any set geographical location. So the claim that the colonist didn't have any representation is technically false since they Parliment represented everyone and quite frequently acknowledged colonialist claims, such as the recompensation during and after the French and Indian War, and in repealing the Stamp Act when presented by arguments against it, and resentment for it. I see no historical facts of any unreasonable demands on the Colonists. If you know of any please tell me.

P.S. Please demonstrate my "trolling" and I am quite willing if given actual historical evidence (meaning actual events) from a reliable source to reconsider my position. Are you willing to say the same thing?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

jj said:
The more I read, yes, the more that seems like what the guy is arguing.

That is actually not my argument at all. I believe that they were NOT treating the colonists like crap, that the colonists were over reacting, and I have yet to see any actual events (i.e. not overall views of the scheme of things at the time) that would lead me to think otherwise. If you could show me enough facts, I would be more than will to change my mind.
 
The triumph of America over Cuba is evidenced, not by the military or sanctions or politics, but by the simple fact that Cubans are willing to risk their very lives just to get here.

In the 1920s after Japan had invaded Korea and began destroying the Korean economy and enslaving the people, over 2 million Koreans migrated to Japan because they had more economic oppertunity in Japan. So, the Japanese were the good guys right?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Hegel said:


That is actually not my argument at all. I believe that they were NOT treating the colonists like crap, that the colonists were over reacting, and I have yet to see any actual events (i.e. not overall views of the scheme of things at the time) that would lead me to think otherwise. If you could show me enough facts, I would be more than will to change my mind.

Come on, Hegel, the tax regulations for import and export from the colonies are common knowledge, as are the tarrifs that resulted in the starvations in Ireland, etc.

You are certainly right, the colonies were headed down the same road as Scotland, Wales, and later Ireland, but they were far enough away to do something about it.

London merchants didn't pay those tarriffs, even when they landed in the new world, the BUYER had to pay them on both the front and back ends.

Look, your position is historically ridiculous and we all know it, including you. Why are you trolling here?

Once again, you seem to indicate that what George did to the American colonies was ok because he also did it to all the other colonies.

That is obvious hogwash.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

jj said:


Come on, Hegel, the tax regulations for import and export from the colonies are common knowledge, as are the tarrifs that resulted in the starvations in Ireland, etc.

You are certainly right, the colonies were headed down the same road as Scotland, Wales, and later Ireland, but they were far enough away to do something about it.

London merchants didn't pay those tarriffs, even when they landed in the new world, the BUYER had to pay them on both the front and back ends.

Look, your position is historically ridiculous and we all know it, including you. Why are you trolling here?

Once again, you seem to indicate that what George did to the American colonies was ok because he also did it to all the other colonies.

That is obvious hogwash.

I'm sorry but I am NOT trolling. This is my actual belief. I think that the taxes were perfectally reasonable. Yes the buyer had to pay it. That is how sales taxes are everywhere. If a british merchant wanted to buy molasses after the sugar act, it would be cheaper when shipped over seas, and when buy refined sugar would be more expensive. This lowers the trade in refined sugar, but increases it in molasses (and through molasses rum a product primarily produced by the COLONIES). I don't think that the American colonies were going anywhere near what the British did to Ireland. With the Irish the British directly came in and would take goods from Irish families. In America, they simply regulated trade using taxes, which meant that people could still do what they wanted it just cost more, (or less as with molasses and the Sugar Act).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

Hegel said:
I'm sorry but I am NOT trolling. This is my actual belief. I think that the taxes were perfectally reasonable.

Your belief is irrelevant. The facts of the matter are, I think, clear, and your revisionist interpretation is simply a trolling manouever.
:s2:
:coal:
 
Your side has the Declaration of Independence. Here is my rebuttal. Take it with a grain of wisdom, just like you should while reading the Declaration. Read and see it from the other point of view. The same FACTS mind you, just worded differently.



His Majesty the esteemed George the III of England has rightfully removed privileges from the Colonists which they have shown time and time again that would use to further irresponsible works, even treasonous works against their rightful rulers and representatives in the body of the Parliament of all the British Empire, which has repetitively relinquished to the demands of the Colonists when the grievances brought before them have indeed been shown unjust.

His Majesty has removed the rights of the Colonists to hold their own regional governments, because they were acting irresponsibly, and failing in their duty to root out and destroy traitors to the English government of which they themselves were a part.

The regional governments have failed to act in accordance with the directives of the English government and have at times even worked against the British parliament, and therefore against the common good of the Empire on a whole, and against British citizens everywhere.

He has refused to grant leave to enter into the newly gained territory, until it has become safe for British citizens, and until he had enough well trained soldiers to hold the Native population at bay.

He has sent armies for the purpose of quelling treason, which has become common in the colonies, and through this purpose to prevent conflict between the colonies and to protect them from outside invaders in the form of the Native population, which so plagued them before His Majesty granted leave of his protection.

He has established martial law in those colonies which, against the greater good of the Empire, and the Colonies themselves have acted treasonously, attacking and harming British soldiers sent to protect them from harm and to act in the defense of justice, destroying British goods sent for the betterment of the colonies, and for acting in other manners most unseemly of a British citizen.

He has required that they summit themselves to the jurisdiction of Parliament which acts for all of the Empire to improve the Economies and wealth of all the British Empire, and to capitalize on the strengths of all parts of the Empire.

He has required that the Citizens of the Colonies quarter the troops sent to them for the purpose of the Common Defense of British Citizens, and the establishment of law and order, which has obviously been lacking in the colonies under the lax rule of their regional governments.

He has supported Parliament in its works for the greater good of the Empire, and in the use of the Natural resources of the Colonies, and the Manufacturing potential in the land of England to create a form of trade both beneficial and profitable to both sides.

He has allowed Parliament to tax the British citizens and finally has made them pay for the gifts of Government, namely those of Protection from outer enemies, and the Establishment of Tranquility and Peace within their jurisdiction.

He has granted to the Quebecois, who are now British citizens, land and opportunities, to those who were once our enemies showing the same kindness, and graciousness that he and his Parliament have demonstrated time and time again to the grievances laid by the Colonies when they have indeed been deemed unjust and has repealed them duly.

He is transporting foreign mercenaries here in order to provide for the Common Defense, and finally allow greater expansion into the Territories gained in Paris.

He has captured smugglers who were acting in a treasonous manner by aiding the Power of foreign governments whose sole purpose is to wreak havoc and death on the Empire of Britain. He tried these smugglers found them rightly guilty of treason and has sentenced them to serve in the defense of the Empire which they have wrongly wounded with their treasonous acts.

He has often patiently listened to the Complaints that the Colonies spew forth, and has frequently addressed their grievances and has mended them, except when they have been deemed necessary to the Good of the Empire, or to the Protection of British Citizens and their families.

He has thus demonstrated himself to be a pure and honest leader who has shown that he has the Good of All the Empire including her Colonies in the Americas in her heart, and that he and his Parliament work selflessly for the good of all British citizens.
 
Hegel said:
Your side has the Declaration of Independence. Here is my rebuttal.

Straw man, extraction from context, appeal to irrelevant authority,...

Man oh man, Habermass is turning over in his sepulchre.

Whaaaatever......
 
jj said:


Straw man, extraction from context, appeal to irrelevant authority,...



I'm sorry if I have mistaken what you have said. I felt that it was quite clear that you felt that the American Revolution was justified, for the reasons that were presented in the Declaration of Independence. If this is wrong, then please inform me what IS your opinion.

Secondly I have not taken anything out of its context. All of the events demonstrated in the previous document are as true as any of the events presented in the Declaration. All this document does is show it from an Imperialist/Loyalist perspective, which I am a member of. It shows EXACTLY why I feel that the greviences that the colonies were bringing up were irrelevant, irresponsible, and at times down right puerile.

Finally I'm not bringing in ANY irrelevant authorities. I wrote the document myself, and it directly addresses, and rebuttles the greviences lain in the Declaration of Independence.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was the American Revolution justified?

jj said:

Look, your position is historically ridiculous and we all know it, including you. Why are you trolling here?

My position is NOT historically rediculous. At least 15% of the colonists picked up and moved to Canada during the revolution, because they still felt Loyalty to the King and Parliament. I simply continue to hold their point of view, namely that the British government had not done anything severe enough to justify a revolution. The Colonists were acting like children. They wanted all of their greviences solved, and they were completely unwilling to compromise. Who is in the wrong, the British government that was trying to work with the Colonies, or the Americans who were stubbornly refusing to budge on ANY of their issues.


P.S.
Please when you respond to this and other posts, please do not make another comment about "historical facts" that come in the form of:
"It is a historical FACT that the British treated the Colonists like crap."
That is quite obviously NOT a fact. That is an opinion. A fact would be:
"In 1763 the British Government passes the sugar act, raising the duties on refined sugar, and lowering them on molasses."
That actually happened. Whether or not the British government abused the Colonists or not is a matter of Opinion, and one that we are arguing here.
 

Back
Top Bottom