Independence from the British Empire

[ArtDrake]

I actually don't think you understand perfectly what I'm saying, because I never said they should pity their ruler, but rather am trying to make the point that shortly, the politics at the time would have been smoothed over (the British, in fact, did not end up needing a standing army; the French didn't go into a bloody revenge war after their revolution). The conditions the British Empire was conferring upon the Americans were a necessary measure at the time, and had the Americans been patient, living conditions would have improved, not to mention many lives spared.

Also, your premise of the British king not being able to make excuses just because of the politics at the time? These were the current-day issues of the Empire, of which America was a part. Not being informed about the current situation enough to make an intelligent decision is not performing one's duty as a citizen of the British Empire, and making war based off a lack of information is an even more serious offense.
But the Americans did know what was going on. Americans fought in the French and Indian war (Seven Years War), and were aware of the financial strain on the Empire, just like Hawaii knows fully well that economic conditions might be less than ideal now, but that they will improve as soon as we stop fighting three wars at once.

Sure, the British troops stopped being stationed in America after the war ended. But was it worth fighting over? My answer is no.

And the analogy isn't that bad.

I notice that while you criticize me for using the same points repeatedly, you do nothing to change your attacks on my position. My defense doesn't change for that reason.

[Deagonx]

You say that if the Americans would have ridden it out then things would have gotten better?

Why wait? They revolted against their oppressive empire. I for one would not have wanted to wait, especcialy since you were being taxed by someone who totally objectifies you.

Despite how 'necessary' you think it is, they are still people. People that felt that the king didn't view them as his subjects or citizens.
They felt that he was neglecting them, and overtaxing them. They got tired of waiting and decided to end it.

[ArtDrake]

They revolted against their temporarily oppressive empire.

As for the bit about being taxed by someone who totally objectifies you, what do you think the IRS does? Should we revolt against our current government?
The king didn't view them as anything. King George viewed America as just another colony, to be taxed as necessary, and as a good place to station troops in a time of unrest. Do you want all of your rulers to be talking with their people, kissing babies, and getting to know their citizens, or would you like for them to do their job correctly?

King George III wasn't neglecting the Americans; during the Seven Years War, England had sent over military forces to fight in North America alongside the Americans. Then, to give yet another good reason, the British Empire raised taxes on America because King George had felt that in defending America from the Indians and the French, the Empire needed to recuperate from the wartime expenses from the previous war, and so they looked to the colony they had just defended.

It wasn't neglect, it was good leadership.

Your last statement only exemplifies the inconsiderate and impatient nature of the Americans, along with their ingratitude, and their unwillingness to cooperate with the Empire. Most of what really provoked the American Revolution was simply a matter of business interests. Not moral values, not an irrepressable desire to be free of tyranny, but money. God (may He / She or may He / She not exist) bless America.

[bugfartboy]

They revolted against their temporarily oppressive empire.

How do you know it would have been temporary?

[ArtDrake]

Because of the reasons stated.

The quartering of soldiers probably would have only lasted for until the wartime situation was over.
The excessive taxes would have gone away as soon as war debts were paid off.
The "neglect" of America by the King and rest of the British Empire would have gone away as soon as America started exploiting its natural resources, and became a superpowered colony. It would have few other colonies to compete with as soon as the rest of the colonies of the British Empire revolted, because in those cases, the natives were being mistreated, but hadn't been exterminated like in America. So the other colonies would have been lost, and America would have probably enjoyed full British rights as soon as progressive thinking took root in the world, and they pushed for British rights in a nonviolent way...

The list goes on, and while I don't know for sure, Buggy, I strongly believe that it would have been.

[Deagonx]

Once again, King George treats America as if it isn't part of England.

He raised taxes is return for defending them, it IS his territory. He shouldnt tax one part of his country higher than everyone else.
Despite how far away it is, he treated them as if they were not part of England. Taxed them seperately, and even though he treated them this way they didn't get any representation in parliament.

Instead of just heavily, heavily taxing the poor American people, he should have modestly raised the taxes all across him empire. Not focused on the one part he just 'defended'

So, if someone had attacked England itself what do you think he would have done? No, he wouldnt have raised taxers in England. He would have raised taxes in America, where they could do nothing about it.

No representation in Parliament. They had not but Revolution

[ArtDrake]

Despite the way your sentences don't always have a subject and a predicate, I think I understand what you're getting at.

The taxes were moderately raised. The Colonial American people weren't that poor. And the British Empire had the official policy of raising taxes post-war in a way proportionate to the costs inflicted on Britain and the Crown of keeping the colony in the Empire. In the French and Indian War, England and its troops had done a service to the Thirteen Colonies of British America by expending military force to keep them... not French. Since this would have been undesirable by all, King George III reasoned that British America was indebted to England.

I believe they were right to do so.

You believe they were wrong.

Should the English have to pay increased taxes after engaging in a long overseas war to defend the Colonies of British America, or should the taxes be conferred on a colony that could not have defended itself on its own, and required England to run the expensive operation of shipping troops to America?

And lastly, I would concur with your point that King George III treated British America as non-English. There weren't English. They were British.

[Deagonx]

Sorry, I have a hard time with the difference between England and Britain.

Should they pay increase taxes? Only if it is entirely neccesary. If he would have had troops there to defend America with in the first place he wouldnt have had to worry when they got themselves into trouble.

When you colonize a new land you should leave it with some way to defend itself. Instead, he left a bunch of settlers there to try and make meets end. They were taxed more than regular British citizens because he left them with no way to defend themselves. Sure, they had guns. But they were not trained soldiers, they were regular every day people.

[ArtDrake]

No problem, about the whole England and Britain. England is the bit of the island where London and the King / Queen is. Britain is the Empire. The UK is all that, plus Northern Ireland.

And about earlier, I apologize for saying I didn't think you understood. I didn't mean to condescend, and it was rude of me.

About the point you brought up, it would have been more costly to have English troops over in British America all the time, as well as later fighting in the French and Indian war. To avoid the extra taxes, America would have had to fight its own war completely. In fact, it nearly did so (British America had the right and responsibility to train troops in defense of the British Empire), but even with militias, English troops still had to fight.

[SmartyPants]

Attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and by extension the United States was inconsiderate of the ruler who, though irresponsible and who mistreated his people at times, was going to have his sovereignty violated (psst; the United States of Democracy and Good in the World doesn't have a clean track record as far as violation of sovereignty goes). Sticking our nose and other body parts into the business of a country on the other side of the world is inconsiderate. It's (not "its") good to know what you consider perfectly justified.

Nice job disragarding the fact that the world's greatest intelligence agencies said that a man who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people still has weapons of mass distruction.  Even Bush rivals such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted to go to war with the same knowledge Geroge Bush received. Most Americans thought going to Iraq was a good idea at the time, but they use hindsight to make Bush into a scapegoat, so that Congress, the media, and the American people don't have to take credit pushing America into war.

Plus, we don't want to be inconsiderate to Saddam Hussein.  Thanks to a coup and him ruthlessly killing anyone who speaks out, Hussein is the legitimate leader of Iraq.  How insensitive of us to give control of Iraq to the Iraqi voters.

Next, I'd like to know whether George was actually violating the terms of the Magna Carta through actions at the time of the American Revolution. If so, I was not aware of it.

The Rights of Englishmen were promised to the British people by documents such as the Magna Carta.  There are other documents such as the Declaration of Rights, Habeas Corpus Act 1679, and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

Your first quote is completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I say that protesting that the King of England is presiding over his colony in a less than attentive manner is fine, but that starting an entire war over it was indeed inconsiderate.

Continental Congress only decided to have all diplomatic opitions fail.  For example, the First Continental Congress sent a Petition to the King which expressed loyalty to the king and listed reasonable grievances.

Are you saying that if we (us having been at war for the past 10 years, and under considerable financial strain) declared war on North Korea, and we needed somewhere to station troops as a half-way point, and decided to raise Hawaii's taxes to respond to the strain on the economy from a war, and particularly Hawaii because this would most likely be the first target of the North Koreans (like in WWII), they would be perfectly justified in revolting, because their supposed "ruler" who lives thousands of miles away was, in their opinion, overtaxing them?

I don't see your point.  The people of Hawaii are represented and have a vote when it comes to taxes.  Also, the leader of America isn't a monach, so Hawaiians have influence in choosing the leader.  If the president takes away rights from Hawaii such as representation in Congress and continues to tax Hawaii, then Hawaii is perfectly justified in revolting.

In the French and Indian War, England and its troops had done a service to the Thirteen Colonies of British America by expending military force to keep them... not French. Since this would have been undesirable by all, King George III reasoned that British America was indebted to England.
Should the English have to pay increased taxes after engaging in a long overseas war to defend the Colonies of British America, or should the taxes be conferred on a colony that could not have defended itself on its own, and required England to run the expensive operation of shipping troops to America?

Where did you get this info from, because it is simply wrong?  The French and Indian War was caused because the British were trying to steal the land of Ohio and Maine from the French.  The Americans Colonist are the ones who risked their lives fighting a war caused by British's selfish need to expand their empire. The are award for their service with disrespect and higher taxes.

[ArtDrake]

First point: I'm not saying a Democrat wouldn't have done it. I just said it was wrong.

Second: Understood, but were there violations of these?

Third: Yes, but he was busy. Sure, not a very good excuse, but not a reason for revolt.

Fourth: Oh, so the District of Columbia's inhabitants have the right to revolt?

Fifth: Yes, but if you look deeper, the French were sending in expeditionary force to affirm French control on the territory and terrorized British-affiliated Indians (not of India, but of the American Indies  :-[ -- maybe not).

[Deagonx]

First point: I'm not saying a Democrat wouldn't have done it. I just said it was wrong.

Did he not already explain that they had good reason to believe they had nukes?

Second: Understood, but were there violations of these?

All of his trespasses upon the magna carta were listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Third: Yes, but he was busy. Sure, not a very good excuse, but not a reason for revolt.

Well alone no, it isn't a good reason for revolt. But haven't we spent the entire last 3 pages discussing reasons OTHER than this?

Fourth: Oh, so the District of Columbia's inhabitants have the right to revolt?

DC does not have representation in congress because it is not really a 'state'
Although, it does hold 3 electoral votes in the presidential election.

Fifth: Yes, but if you look deeper, the French were sending in expeditionary force to affirm French control on the territory and terrorized British-affiliated Indians (not of India, but of the American Indies  :-[ -- maybe not).

I dont have a response to this because I dont quite understand what you are trying to prove.

[ArtDrake]

It is my opinion that America and the Bush Administration took advantage of the 9/11 tragedy to replace a non-democratic leadership with a democratic one.

Those were all Magna Carta trespasses? It didn't say so...

Yes, and I had thought I had pointed out that the other reasons weren't legitimate, leaving this one, alone.

America didn't have representation in Congress; it wasn't really a state. Nobody had presidential election rights under the British Empire (monarchy). So, America had about as little, if not less reason to revolt in that respect as D.C.

[SmartyPants]

First point: I'm not saying a Democrat wouldn't have done it. I just said it was wrong.

Did he not already explain that they had good reason to believe they had nukes?

Weapons of mass distruction are more then nukes.  It was more likley to have chemical weapons, then nukes.

It is my opinion that America and the Bush Administration took advantage of the 9/11 tragedy to replace a non-democratic leadership with a democratic one.

I also think Bush took the intelligence about weapons of mass distruction as an opportunity to bring democracy to the middle east.  The theory was that seeing a sucessful democracy in middle east would motivate the citizens of the middle east into demanding democracy for themselves.

Fourth: Oh, so the District of Columbia's inhabitants have the right to revolt?

The 23rd Amendment allows them to vote for the president.  They also are represented by a delegate in the House of Representatives.

Fifth: Yes, but if you look deeper, the French were sending in expeditionary force to affirm French control on the territory and terrorized British-affiliated Indians.

They sent the expeditionary force across French territory, because the British show signs they were going to steal it from them.

[Deagonx]

Those were all Magna Carta trespasses? It didn't say so...

America didn't have representation in Congress; it wasn't really a state. Nobody had presidential election rights under the British Empire (monarchy). So, America had about as little, if not less reason to revolt in that respect as D.C.

I didnt say ALL of the things listed were complaining about him, but everything he did wrong was put into it.


Don't compare what happened then to now. The government is entirely different. DC does have voting rights. You can vote on the president, but they aren't a state. They are little more than a city that doesnt belong to a state. Although, they still have 3 electoral votes in the presidential elections.