American Independence

[Fryk]

Arrested? Pshht, you were probably shot and/or beaten on the spot.

[Kheldarson]

From my own research and classes, yes, the British were justified in their taxation. If you look at the taxes in America versus the rest of the Empire at the time, you find that we weren't paying near the same amount. So Britain, being incredibly broke, said they were going to jump the taxes up. After having all but ignored America for several decades. That's part of what pissed America off. Case in point: It happened with the state of Nevada in the 1970's and federal government tried to jump the federal tax up immediately and make them pay back taxes. Got the citizens of Nevada pissed off too. But that's what the "no taxation without representation" was about. They didn't feel that they should be taxed to help pay off a war that they really didn't care about or feel was necessary in America, especially when American interests were being ignored or cut off (like a ban on trading with nations other than British ones).

[Slytovhand]

Question - how many of Britain's colonies had a war of independence? (from the ex-pats... not the indigenous populations - they all makes sense!)

I sort of guessing that 'taxation without representation' was common to all, or at least most, so why did the American colonies have to fight for it?

Not condoning some of the actions previously mentioned, but why were there so many British soldiers over there that they didn't have barracks for them? From what the article suggests (and that's all the information I'm going on... we tend not to study American History in my part of the planet), they were there because of the stupidity and ignorance of the locals.

[AdminAssistant]

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.

So Union troops and later American militias could do the exact same thing during the Civil War and Reconstruction?

[Stormraven]

I didn't say that the Third Amendment actually prevented anything. Our government has a long history of ignoring parts of the Constitution that it doesn't like.

However, the Third Amendment does have exceptions, too, for times of war, so long as they're taken as prescribed by law.

[Kheldarson]

Question - how many of Britain's colonies had a war of independence? (from the ex-pats... not the indigenous populations - they all makes sense!)

I sort of guessing that 'taxation without representation' was common to all, or at least most, so why did the American colonies have to fight for it?

Not condoning some of the actions previously mentioned, but why were there so many British soldiers over there that they didn't have barracks for them? From what the article suggests (and that's all the information I'm going on... we tend not to study American History in my part of the planet), they were there because of the stupidity and ignorance of the locals.

It was a matter of being taxed at all.

Imagine this. You get fortunate enough to move someplace in the nation that's far removed from anybody else. Set up your home, do your own thing. It's remote enough that people tend to forget about you. You still pay taxes, but it's been years since anybody's been out to your property to see the improvements you've made. Then, due to expansion, you have people nearby again. And the government finally notices that you've made massive improvements to your land. You owe more taxes. And probably have been paying short for many years. So they're not only going to raise your taxes significantly to bring it to its proper amount, but also charge you back taxes. Are you going to be happy?

Neither were the colonists. That was the point. They wanted to be able to expand (hence ignoring rules about not invading native lands). They wanted to trade freely (hence ignoring rules about not trading with anybody non-British). And all of that made America rich. Rich enough to call attention to itself after the Seven Years' War. And Britain cracked down on all of it. So not only was there going to be a massive money drain, Britain was threatening the major profits for the merchants. That's what the fight was about. Representation just made it sound nobler.

[Mytical]

I probably should just shut my trap and leave things be. After all, I only know what I am told, and wasn't there. If I had been, I'd be really old right now. Really really old. From what I understand, and as American I only have the biased American version to go on, things are not as cut and dry as people make it out to be.

It was not just about taxation, it was not just about the soldiers being able to pretty much move in and take over (and rape/molest the females), it was not just about the fact that America had to sell just about everything to England controlled areas for a fraction of what those areas resold them for. It was not about a few BIG things, it was about many many many small things.

Being considered 'second class citizens', etc. Now is America perfect? Hardly. Yeah we had some people who were, at the time, considered second class citizens. We've had our taxation issues...etc. So maybe our government was not better then the other. It's over and done with, it's been two hundred freakin years...get over it.

[Hobbs]

I don't know if it's been posted already, so forgive me if I repeat. Also, forgive me, any English here, since I'm paraphrasing my Early Modern England class from two semesters ago.

The traditional English system of government was parliamentary, and after the Glorious Revolution and a myriad of other happenings, the true power of government was seen in Parliament and in the House of Commons. The English were proud of this system and liked their representative democracy. The Colonies had been largely overlooked by the Crown, and though there were Governors and such, each colony had it's own legislature-which they saw as their own Parliament.

After the Seven Years War/King George's War/French and Indian War, England had a lot of debts to pay. It was decided that, since a lot of the fighting had been in the American colonies, to tax the Colonists. Parliaments claim to legislative legitimacy was that the Colonies had 'virtual' representation within Parliament. The Colonists' disagreed, saying they had no representatives in England, and therefore their Colonial legistlatures were the only valid legislatures.

King George III, though blamed for a lot, was not the primary instigator, and in fact, was merely trying to enforce laws enacted by England's Parliament.

So, the fact that the taxes were lawful is up for debate. Parliament would claim they were, while the Colonists claimed they weren't (taxation without representation).

phew....

[Greenday]

The main issue was this: If England was a father, England was a pansy of a parent. In all that time of America's colonial period, England failed time and again to tax and punish America. America got so used to this that when England tried to finally punish Americans, the Americans were a rebellious teenager and it was too late.

Oh crap, my test on American history up until the end of the American Revolution is in 35 minutes! Better get to class.