American Independence

[Rapscallion]

I was browsing through old book marks, as I do from time to time, and I came across something by a chap in the Americas.

http://citizented.com/?p=486

Some of the stuff on the rest of his blog do feature occasional ladies wearing very little, or a huge amount of swearing. You have been warned if you step off the beaten track.

However, he did some digging around about the War of Independence. He's come to the conclusion that the taxes that were the apparent reason for the schism were justified, and that the generally accepted view is bollocks.

Anyone able to corroborate or deny this?

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I am supremely let down by the lack of linked to or quoted citations as to where he got his info and what exactly it was, if only to see how he put it together to come to this conclusion. Lacking that I'm going to go ahead and file this under "Interesting point pertaining to already overcomplicated event".

Maybe it was just my history classes, but every year there was some 'great big other reason' behind the whole affair. Most of them were based on a handful of decent observations, and subsequently rendered useless by sweeping generalizations.

For now, I'm still going with my usual opinion as to why most anything happens: one big reason and crap tons of little reasons. To be fair, however, it's time to do some digging of my own *digging commences*

[AdminAssistant]

I have quite a few friends who are grad students in history, and they frequently tell me that the usual "founding of our country" story is complete and utter bullshit. But we aren't allowed to do any digging or find any faults with our "Founding Fathers" because that makes us anti-American Socialist Commie bastards.

[Greenday]

There was also that tiny issue of no human rights for colonists that the author obviously forgot to mention. But I guess they don't mean anything to him.

[Stormraven]

As I recall it, generally, the issue most of the Founders had with those taxes wasn't their existence, per se. Just that the colonies had no representation in the legislative bodies that passed them. i.e., 'No taxation without representation'. Then, when they complained about things like that, said legislative body began a campaign of harassment and legal chicanery.

Basically, my understanding is that, had the colonies been allowed representation within Parliament, the revolution might never have taken place.

That is, of course, based on what I learned in history and further readings. Nothing presented on that blog really changes my mind regarding same. The complaints that most immediately led to the revolution were, as I recall, less about taxes and more about how England reacted to the Colonists complaints.

[AdminAssistant]

i.e., 'No taxation without representation'.

That argument is so bullshit. Because when the dust settled and we did found our great nation of equality, liberty, and justice for all....who had representation? Land-owning white men. Not slaves, not the poor, not women, not the American Indians we were murdering left and right.

[Greenday]

So, Admin, you are saying the people left unrepresented in America were the ones not paying taxes?

I'm not agreeing it's right, but we had to start somewhere.

[AdminAssistant]

So, Admin, you are saying the people left unrepresented in America were the ones not paying taxes?

Actually, read the book called No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies by Linda Kerber. Women who were widowed or unmarried were required to pay income tax and property tax. And yet they could not vote.

[Greenday]

They weren't represented under British rule either in America. But at least it was still locals who got to start making decisions.

[jackfaire]

I have honestly never heard a single argument ever used for the Revolution that would have had me running to go to war over.

[HYHYBT]

The complaints that most immediately led to the revolution were, as I recall, less about taxes and more about how England reacted to the Colonists complaints.

This. There were a lot of relatively minor complaints about how England was running the place, and some of them may have been unfounded for all I know. But the way they handled the complaints almost seems *intended* to cause a permanent split. It's not that different, except in scale, than my getting a mushroom swiss burger from the Dairy Queen. I didn't mind so much that they'd put mayonnaise on it, but their refusal to fix it and their denial that it was *even there* were too much.

[Greenday]

I have honestly never heard a single argument ever used for the Revolution that would have had me running to go to war over.

You and your family was tar and feathered, then booted out of your house so British soldiers could stay there. You are not allowed to sue them or anything. In fact, they are going to hold you hostage because they can.

Yea, that sort of thing happened.

[jackfaire]

You and your family was tar and feathered, then booted out of your house so British soldiers could stay there. You are not allowed to sue them or anything. In fact, they are going to hold you hostage because they can.

Yea, that sort of thing happened.

Was that before or after the war started?

I may be alone but I think war is brutul, dark and not the happy picnic we all seem to want it to be.

If that happened before the war, I have never heard an account of that being the case, then yes that would be reason for me to fight back; however all the things that I have heard happened before the war are not reasons I would have gone to war over.

My ancestors felt different.

[Stormraven]

Things like that were before. To save money on barracks, the British troops were often quartered in people's houses, and - if the government paid anything at all for rent, it was a pittance. This is why the Third Amendment exists.

Add in the fact that a substantial handful of British army recruits attempted to 'get overly friendly with' the daughters or wives in some of those houses - and more than a few succeeded - and right there you have a really good reason to want them out.

Granted, it was a handful, however substantial, but that it happened at all simply fed fuel to the fire.

[Greenday]

Add in the fact that a substantial handful of British army recruits attempted to 'get overly friendly with' the daughters or wives in some of those houses - and more than a few succeeded - and right there you have a really good reason to want them out.

And if you tried to stop them, you were arrested and possibly killed.