U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-06-2013, 03:45 PM
 
396 posts, read 296,419 times
Reputation: 138

Advertisements

The French Revolution was an actual revolution. The people governed repudiated and overthrew the government system by which they were ruled and replaced it.

The American "Revolution" was a civil war. The goal of the minority of colonists (at the height of the movement, after France, Spain and the Netherlands declared war on Great Britain and converted the local insurrection into a global war between superpowers, support for the cause never exceeded 33%; the majority of colonists remained loyal patriots, true to the legitimate government) was to separate from the existing government and to create 13 new and independent nations.

The complaints of the French Revolutionaries were legitimate. Due to the outdated financial system, the crippling cost of the Seven Years War, the loss of French colonial America and the massive French contribution to the British colonial rebels, France was suffering a devastating depression. Poor harvests coupled with a lousy transportation system resulted in ever escalating food costs, which led in turn to widespread hunger and outright starvation. The apparent disdain of King Louis XVI for the plight of his subjects and the near universal hated of his wife, Queen Marie-Antoinette, an Austrian, merely added more fuel to the fire. The oppressive tax system, that heavily taxed the poor while granting obscene exemptions to the nobility and the clergy didn't help and the influence of the Catholic Church over the government and private as well as public affairs further incited the hoi poloi who wanted at least religious tolerance, if not religious freedom.

By contrast, in the British colonies the commoners enjoyed the most personal freedom and liberty the world had seen since the Golden Age of Athens (at least to the minority of Athenians who were allowed to participate in Athenian "democracy") and the Colonials enjoyed more freedom than their British brothers and sisters across the pond due to Parliament's decision to follow the misguided and self-destructive policy of Salutary Neglect. Only when Parliament decided that the colonies should finally pick up a small piece of the tab for their maintenance and defense (by no means nothing close to the full expense) after the Seven Years War and began efforts to collect the taxes and prosecute the tax cheats and smugglers like George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did rebels, traitors and terrorists like John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams and Paul Revere begin their campaign for armed conflict and separation from the Empire. Most of the populace opposed the traitors or opted to remain neutral (since treason is an active crime and requires overt conduct, the neutrals must necessarily be counted with the loyal patriots who stood against the insurrection).

Some of the propaganda was the same in both conflicts. The background from which that propaganda was spawned was far different, as were the intended and actual results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2013, 03:52 PM
 
66 posts, read 74,922 times
Reputation: 73
Americans have never been people to revolt for political or cultural change. It's not in their blood. American revolution was fueled by not wanting to pay back debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2013, 03:55 PM
 
396 posts, read 296,419 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceTeaDrinker2013 View Post
Americans have never been people to revolt for political or cultural change. It's not in their blood. American revolution was fueled by not wanting to pay back debt.


by a few rich tax evaders and smugglers like Washington and company.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2013, 04:18 PM
 
12,172 posts, read 18,328,898 times
Reputation: 18904
Mod cut: Off topic.

Modern historians generally say about 40% of the population of the colonies supported independence, about 20% were loyalists, and the rest undecided (basically, it was dependent on who's troops were in the area at the time).
So now our founding fathers are tax evaders, smugglers, and treasonists? Yeah! Well, that's the definition of a War of Independence isn't it? You generally have to stop paying taxes to the government who you are trying to remove from power. That's "Captian Obvious" type stuff.
Without going into a 1,000 word essay on the origins of the American Revolution, it can be most summed up into "no taxation without representation". So yeah, part of it was due to the concept of paying tribute for the honor of a government that was 5,000 miles away making decisions for it. Funds for the defense, maintanance, and development of the colonies? The U.S. did just fine with that after independence, thank you very much.
And the French Revolution. Hmmm, let's discuss that. If anything, that's is a textbook example of a revolution going bad. After 2 decades of guillotines, dictatorship and police state rule, and starting wars that resulted in the deaths of about 5 million humans, France went back to the monarchy. Imagine that.

Last edited by PJSaturn; 10-07-2013 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2013, 05:42 PM
 
396 posts, read 296,419 times
Reputation: 138
Revolution defined: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

The people you are trained to call "patriots", but who in fact were traitors and engaged in wanton treason and terrorism, were not trying to overthrow and replace their rightful government. They were trying to separate from it. A rebellion is opposition to one in authority or dominance or open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. The minority of colonists who supported the traitors (about 20% on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress purported to declare independence from the Empire and never exceeding 33%, even after France, Spain and the Netherlands recognized them and turned the local insurrection into a full scale global war, giving the rebels and outside chance of being on the winning side) were never trying to overthrow or replace the British government.

The War Between the States is another story entirely. When Great Britain granted independence to the colonies by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, 13 new nations were created in North America. Those nations never consolidated into a single nation. Rather, they established a confederacy, a federation of independent nations and they created a federal, not national, government to legislate over very few, limited and specifically enumerated areas of common interest. As to all else, they retained their individual independence, autonomy and sovereignty. It was understood that any of them could opt out of the confederacy at any time. The New England states threatened to opt out, to secede, in 1801, 1803, 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1815. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, making clear their opinion that the states were sovereign entities, free to ignore federal legislation and, by extension, to leave the federation. States on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line threatened to secede over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1821 and again over the (constitutionally and legally correct) Dred Scott decision of 1857. However, by 1860, the southern states had been totally disenfranchised and had no say in any branch of federal government, but fully 75% of federal revenues were raised in the south and 75% of federal spending occurred in the north. Taking to heart the core principle of the Declaration of Independence that when a government no longer serves, defends or protects the rights and interests of the governed, the people have a right to change or leave the government, the people of the CSA states opted to leave. Their democratically elected representatives passed the Ordinances of Secession and the people themselves ratified the Ordinances in convention or at the polls. Not wanting to lose the cash cow of the southern states and not wanting a rival government competing for the theft of Native lands in the west, the remaining USA states responding by launching a war of aggression and invaded the free and independent southern states with the sole goal of conquering and annexing them.

Winners write the history. Those with an agenda select the semantics. Propaganda works. Thus, we have the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Both are misnomers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2013, 05:50 PM
 
396 posts, read 296,419 times
Reputation: 138
Given that on July 2, 1776, the day the Second Continental Congress purported to declare independence by passage of the Lee Resolution, only 20% of the colonists supported independence and separation from the empire, clearly the civil war (it was NOT a revolution by any logical definition of the term) was not only not inevitable, but was clearly avoidable. At the peak of the movement, after France, Spain and the Netherlands joined the fray and converted the local insurrection into a global war pitting 3 superpowers against a fourth, thereby giving the rebels some outside chance of success, support for the cause never exceeded 33%. There is a reason the propaganda pedagogs screaming about representation never put their proposition of independence and separation before "We the People" for a vote. The proposition would have gone down in flames at the polls.

Support for independence in the home isles was actually higher than in the colonies (exceeding 50% at times). The homeland Brits were sick and tired of being forced to finance the colonies that had always been more trouble and expense than they were worth. Clearly, independence would have eventually come by peaceful means. However, when smugglers and tax cheats like John Hancock, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Paul Revere and Patrick Henry and their cronies saw their fortunes threatened when Parliament finally abandoned the foolish and misguided, self-destructive policy of Salutary Neglect, they turned traitor and agitated for armed rebellion. Taxes had always been imposed on the colonials by Parliament, as was Parliament's clear right and duty. The difference, after the financial devastation brought on by the Seven Years War and the depression it caused, was that Parliament for the first time actually took steps to collect the taxes and to curtail the rampant smuggling by the colonists.

Most of the patriots who remained loyal to the rightful government fully understood the need for the taxes and that those taxes did not come close to picking up the full cost expended by Parliament for the defense and maintenance of the colonies. They also knew that under the British Parliamentary system of government, they were as fully represented in Parliament as were the homeland Brits and the other colonials around the globe (which is probably why they never demanded that a representative to Parliament be appointed or elected from the colonies.) The colonial aristocracy, however, controlled the illegitimate "governments" established by the colonials and, as always, policy was directed by the monied few. The propaganda was effective and some of the hoi poloi was duped, but, as already stated, the vast majority of the populace remained loyal and patriotic and were opposed to the antics of the terrorists, traitors and rebels throughout the war. But for the entry into the skirmish by France, Spain and the Netherlands, the colonial rebels would have lost. Since France, Spain and the Netherlands wanted to regain those parts of their empires they had lost in the Seven Years War, and because profits were to be made by the war effort, declared war on the British. They did not particularly sympathize in the rebel's cause, but for reasons of their own national self-interests they declared, then won, war with the Brits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2013, 09:46 PM
 
396 posts, read 296,419 times
Reputation: 138
back to the topic:


Read the indictment section of the Declaration of Independence and research the grievances. On July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress purported to declare independence by passing the Lee Resolution, only about 20% of the colonists supported the movement for independence and separation from the Empire. At the height of the movement after France, Spain and the Netherlands declared war against Great Britain, converting the insurrection (a civil war, not a revolution) into full scale global war and giving the rebels some chance to win, only about 1/3 of the colonists supported the movement. "Colonists", refers only to those colonists in the 13 colonies who were in rebellion. The colonists in British Canada and the British Caribbean refused to join. Why? The traitors of the Congress didn't believe in rule by the majority or governance in accordance with the interests of the majority. Thus, a cadre of rebels "representing" the interests of no more than one in five plunged the entire continent into war. They didn't put the proposal of independence to "We the People" for a vote because they knew the proposition would go down in flames at the polls.

There were no "Americans". In both the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation, the colonists expressly averred that each colony was an independent nation. They never considered themselves to be united together as a single nation or to be "American". Why? They didn't trust each other and had no intention of possibly submitting themselves to the authority of the others. Most colonists were British. In 1776, the British enjoyed the most personal freedom and liberty and had the greatest role in government that had been held by any people since perhaps the Golden Age of Athens (of course, the 'democracy' practiced in Athens then was practiced only by citizens and most Athenians did not qualify). The colonists enjoyed even more due to Parliament's misguided decision to follow the self-destructive policy of "Salutary Neglect". Folks from across Europe applied for British citizenship so they could emigrate to the colonies as British citizens and share those rights. If conditions were so bad, why did so many go to so much trouble and expense to subject themselves to them?

Taxation is a fact of life. Taxes imposed on the colonists were insufficient to cover the cost of maintaining and defending them. The colonies were always a drain on Empire resources, both financial and military. Rampant tax fraud and evasion, smuggling and general disregard of the law by those who screamed the loudest about oppression, folks like Sam Adams and John Hancock, provoked a rethinking of that policy and enforcement of the laws. Massive illegally acquired fortunes were at stake. The Currency Act forced colonials to pay debts with consideration that had actual value rather than the bogus "money" they had been using, driving them into bankruptcy and ruin. The financial legislation was sound, reasonable and necessary response to the inflation and depression brought on by the Seven Years War and (and the minor North American theater of that war probably know to you as "The French and Indian War"). The colonists were asked to pick up only a small portion of the cost that had been incurred in their own defense, but the rebels and traitors deemed even that to be too much.

Read the truth of the "Boston Massacre" by reading the trial transcripts and the newspaper accounts of the day that praised Capt Preston and his men for their restraint, then compare the defamatory and deliberately false accounts spread by Sam Adams when he coined the inappropriate sobriquet. Compare the facts to the highly inaccurate and fictionalized (not to mention plagiarized) etching by Paul Revere.

Read the background behind the "Intolerable Acts" (so named by the rebels as propaganda) and decide if they were oppressive or if they were reasonable responses to acts of insurrection, treason, terrorism and criminality. I defy you to find evidence that even a single British soldier was lodged in a private home in the colonies without the owner's consent. Learn why the act was passed. Would it have been if the colonies had built barracks for the troops stationed there for their defense and protection required? Read the Charters that established the very existence of the colonies, and relate them to the grievances voiced in the Declaration. Under the Charters, are the complaints sound? Consider the treaties Great Britain (therefor the colonies) had entered into with "...the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" (I quote the Declaration). Was it was rational for Parliament to prohibit encroachment on and theft of Native lands.

These examples hardly scratch the surface. No, the grievances were neither justified nor legitimate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2013, 09:58 PM
 
1,161 posts, read 1,974,252 times
Reputation: 2584
The simple fact is that we don't have actual statistics for what the support levels were like. I've read in credible history books that support was about 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalist and the rest, mostly non English settlers, neutral. But who knows what the actual breakdown was? It's all based on estimates and projection.

Still, despite being as loyal an American as one can get I do find it amusing that most of the grievances of the independence movement is based on so called injustice that makes perfect sense to me. The taxes were to pay for the colonists' defense.

But I can sympathize with that in 1770s it was increasingly problematic to govern a largely self sufficient region from as far away as Britain. The British attempt to introduce a more centralized direct rule to compensate for the increasing expense of protecting and maintaining the colonies had little support among many Americans who were used to little interference and a very laissez faire approach. There really wasn't a need for the mother country anymore. The colonies had grown up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 07:10 AM
 
9,742 posts, read 16,890,213 times
Reputation: 18333
The revolution was a colonial revolt, it was not a civil war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 11:37 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 35,883,681 times
Reputation: 14353
Guys, while this topic is right up my alley, I'm not getting into another argument with Rush "I copy and paste everything I say from Yahoo" 71...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71 View Post
The French Revolution was an actual revolution. The people governed repudiated and overthrew the government system by which they were ruled and replaced it.

The American "Revolution" was a civil war. The goal of the minority of colonists (at the height of the movement, after France, Spain and the Netherlands declared war on Great Britain and converted the local insurrection into a global war between superpowers, support for the cause never exceeded 33%; the majority of colonists remained loyal patriots, true to the legitimate government) was to separate from the existing government and to create 13 new and independent nations.

The complaints of the French Revolutionaries were legitimate. Due to the outdated financial system, the crippling cost of the Seven Years War, the loss of French colonial America and the massive French contribution to the British colonial rebels, France was suffering a devastating depression. Poor harvests coupled with a lousy transportation system resulted in ever escalating food costs, which led in turn to widespread hunger and outright starvation. The apparent disdain of King Louis XVI for the plight of his subjects and the near universal hated of his wife, Queen Marie-Antoinette, an Austrian, merely added more fuel to the fire. The oppressive tax system, that heavily taxed the poor while granting obscene exemptions to the nobility and the clergy didn't help and the influence of the Catholic Church over the government and private as well as public affairs further incited the hoi poloi who wanted at least religious tolerance, if not religious freedom.

By contrast, in the British colonies the commoners enjoyed the most personal freedom and liberty the world had seen since the Golden Age of Athens (at least to the minority of Athenians who were allowed to participate in Athenian "democracy") and the Colonials enjoyed more freedom than their British brothers and sisters across the pond due to Parliament's decision to follow the misguided and self-destructive policy of Salutary Neglect. Only when Parliament decided that the colonies should finally pick up a small piece of the tab for their maintenance and defense (by no means nothing close to the full expense) after the Seven Years War and began efforts to collect the taxes and prosecute the tax cheats and smugglers like George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did rebels, traitors and terrorists like John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams and Paul Revere begin their campaign for armed conflict and separation from the Empire. Most of the populace opposed the traitors or opted to remain neutral (since treason is an active crime and requires overt conduct, the neutrals must necessarily be counted with the loyal patriots who stood against the insurrection).

Some of the propaganda was the same in both conflicts. The background from which that propaganda was spawned was far different, as were the intended and actual results.
Were there any similarities between The French Revolution and the American one? - Yahoo! Answers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71 View Post
Revolution defined: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

The people you are trained to call "patriots", but who in fact were traitors and engaged in wanton treason and terrorism, were not trying to overthrow and replace their rightful government. They were trying to separate from it. A rebellion is opposition to one in authority or dominance or open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. The minority of colonists who supported the traitors (about 20% on July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress purported to declare independence from the Empire and never exceeding 33%, even after France, Spain and the Netherlands recognized them and turned the local insurrection into a full scale global war, giving the rebels and outside chance of being on the winning side) were never trying to overthrow or replace the British government.

The War Between the States is another story entirely. When Great Britain granted independence to the colonies by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, 13 new nations were created in North America. Those nations never consolidated into a single nation. Rather, they established a confederacy, a federation of independent nations and they created a federal, not national, government to legislate over very few, limited and specifically enumerated areas of common interest. As to all else, they retained their individual independence, autonomy and sovereignty. It was understood that any of them could opt out of the confederacy at any time. The New England states threatened to opt out, to secede, in 1801, 1803, 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1815. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, making clear their opinion that the states were sovereign entities, free to ignore federal legislation and, by extension, to leave the federation. States on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line threatened to secede over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1821 and again over the (constitutionally and legally correct) Dred Scott decision of 1857. However, by 1860, the southern states had been totally disenfranchised and had no say in any branch of federal government, but fully 75% of federal revenues were raised in the south and 75% of federal spending occurred in the north. Taking to heart the core principle of the Declaration of Independence that when a government no longer serves, defends or protects the rights and interests of the governed, the people have a right to change or leave the government, the people of the CSA states opted to leave. Their democratically elected representatives passed the Ordinances of Secession and the people themselves ratified the Ordinances in convention or at the polls. Not wanting to lose the cash cow of the southern states and not wanting a rival government competing for the theft of Native lands in the west, the remaining USA states responding by launching a war of aggression and invaded the free and independent southern states with the sole goal of conquering and annexing them.

Winners write the history. Those with an agenda select the semantics. Propaganda works. Thus, we have the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Both are misnomers.
What's the difference between a Rebellion and a Revolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71 View Post
Given that on July 2, 1776, the day the Second Continental Congress purported to declare independence by passage of the Lee Resolution, only 20% of the colonists supported independence and separation from the empire, clearly the civil war (it was NOT a revolution by any logical definition of the term) was not only not inevitable, but was clearly avoidable. At the peak of the movement, after France, Spain and the Netherlands joined the fray and converted the local insurrection into a global war pitting 3 superpowers against a fourth, thereby giving the rebels some outside chance of success, support for the cause never exceeded 33%. There is a reason the propaganda pedagogs screaming about representation never put their proposition of independence and separation before "We the People" for a vote. The proposition would have gone down in flames at the polls.

Support for independence in the home isles was actually higher than in the colonies (exceeding 50% at times). The homeland Brits were sick and tired of being forced to finance the colonies that had always been more trouble and expense than they were worth. Clearly, independence would have eventually come by peaceful means. However, when smugglers and tax cheats like John Hancock, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Paul Revere and Patrick Henry and their cronies saw their fortunes threatened when Parliament finally abandoned the foolish and misguided, self-destructive policy of Salutary Neglect, they turned traitor and agitated for armed rebellion. Taxes had always been imposed on the colonials by Parliament, as was Parliament's clear right and duty. The difference, after the financial devastation brought on by the Seven Years War and the depression it caused, was that Parliament for the first time actually took steps to collect the taxes and to curtail the rampant smuggling by the colonists.

Most of the patriots who remained loyal to the rightful government fully understood the need for the taxes and that those taxes did not come close to picking up the full cost expended by Parliament for the defense and maintenance of the colonies. They also knew that under the British Parliamentary system of government, they were as fully represented in Parliament as were the homeland Brits and the other colonials around the globe (which is probably why they never demanded that a representative to Parliament be appointed or elected from the colonies.) The colonial aristocracy, however, controlled the illegitimate "governments" established by the colonials and, as always, policy was directed by the monied few. The propaganda was effective and some of the hoi poloi was duped, but, as already stated, the vast majority of the populace remained loyal and patriotic and were opposed to the antics of the terrorists, traitors and rebels throughout the war. But for the entry into the skirmish by France, Spain and the Netherlands, the colonial rebels would have lost. Since France, Spain and the Netherlands wanted to regain those parts of their empires they had lost in the Seven Years War, and because profits were to be made by the war effort, declared war on the British. They did not particularly sympathize in the rebel's cause, but for reasons of their own national self-interests they declared, then won, war with the Brits.
Was the American revolution inevitable ? - Yahoo! Answers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71 View Post
back to the topic:

Read the indictment section of the Declaration of Independence and research the grievances. On July 2, 1776, when the Second Continental Congress purported to declare independence by passing the Lee Resolution, only about 20% of the colonists supported the movement for independence and separation from the Empire. At the height of the movement after France, Spain and the Netherlands declared war against Great Britain, converting the insurrection (a civil war, not a revolution) into full scale global war and giving the rebels some chance to win, only about 1/3 of the colonists supported the movement. "Colonists", refers only to those colonists in the 13 colonies who were in rebellion. The colonists in British Canada and the British Caribbean refused to join. Why? The traitors of the Congress didn't believe in rule by the majority or governance in accordance with the interests of the majority. Thus, a cadre of rebels "representing" the interests of no more than one in five plunged the entire continent into war. They didn't put the proposal of independence to "We the People" for a vote because they knew the proposition would go down in flames at the polls.

There were no "Americans". In both the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation, the colonists expressly averred that each colony was an independent nation. They never considered themselves to be united together as a single nation or to be "American". Why? They didn't trust each other and had no intention of possibly submitting themselves to the authority of the others. Most colonists were British. In 1776, the British enjoyed the most personal freedom and liberty and had the greatest role in government that had been held by any people since perhaps the Golden Age of Athens (of course, the 'democracy' practiced in Athens then was practiced only by citizens and most Athenians did not qualify). The colonists enjoyed even more due to Parliament's misguided decision to follow the self-destructive policy of "Salutary Neglect". Folks from across Europe applied for British citizenship so they could emigrate to the colonies as British citizens and share those rights. If conditions were so bad, why did so many go to so much trouble and expense to subject themselves to them?

Taxation is a fact of life. Taxes imposed on the colonists were insufficient to cover the cost of maintaining and defending them. The colonies were always a drain on Empire resources, both financial and military. Rampant tax fraud and evasion, smuggling and general disregard of the law by those who screamed the loudest about oppression, folks like Sam Adams and John Hancock, provoked a rethinking of that policy and enforcement of the laws. Massive illegally acquired fortunes were at stake. The Currency Act forced colonials to pay debts with consideration that had actual value rather than the bogus "money" they had been using, driving them into bankruptcy and ruin. The financial legislation was sound, reasonable and necessary response to the inflation and depression brought on by the Seven Years War and (and the minor North American theater of that war probably know to you as "The French and Indian War"). The colonists were asked to pick up only a small portion of the cost that had been incurred in their own defense, but the rebels and traitors deemed even that to be too much.

Read the truth of the "Boston Massacre" by reading the trial transcripts and the newspaper accounts of the day that praised Capt Preston and his men for their restraint, then compare the defamatory and deliberately false accounts spread by Sam Adams when he coined the inappropriate sobriquet. Compare the facts to the highly inaccurate and fictionalized (not to mention plagiarized) etching by Paul Revere.

Read the background behind the "Intolerable Acts" (so named by the rebels as propaganda) and decide if they were oppressive or if they were reasonable responses to acts of insurrection, treason, terrorism and criminality. I defy you to find evidence that even a single British soldier was lodged in a private home in the colonies without the owner's consent. Learn why the act was passed. Would it have been if the colonies had built barracks for the troops stationed there for their defense and protection required? Read the Charters that established the very existence of the colonies, and relate them to the grievances voiced in the Declaration. Under the Charters, are the complaints sound? Consider the treaties Great Britain (therefor the colonies) had entered into with "...the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" (I quote the Declaration). Was it was rational for Parliament to prohibit encroachment on and theft of Native lands.

These examples hardly scratch the surface. No, the grievances were neither justified nor legitimate.
Were all of the grievances of the American Revolution really justified or were the British actually being more? - Yahoo! Answers

Mod cut: Orphaned material.

Last edited by PJSaturn; 10-07-2013 at 01:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top